geocode

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description adds valuable context by naming the external service (Nominatim) and stating that only the label is sent. This clarifies the tool's external dependency and privacy-relevant behavior beyond the annotation hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral note. Every word earns its place and no extraneous detail is included.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, the output schema exists to define return values, and annotations cover side effects. The description supplies the essential external-service and privacy context, so an agent can invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around rate limits or exact coordinate precision, but these are not critical for a coarse-geocoding call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-specific detail, though the phrase 'Sends only the label' hints that the query is the main payload.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Turn') and a clear resource ('a place label') to describe the outcome: coarse coordinates. It also names the provider (Nominatim), making the tool's role unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like find_facilities or food_lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The use case is implied by the definition: if an agent needs coarse coordinates from a place label, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as find_facilities or estimate_energy.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.