Reverse geocode coordinates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by mentioning 'nearest' (approximate result) and Nominatim (external service), but does not disclose potential rate limits, data accuracy caveats, or other behavioral traits that could affect invocation expectations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and names the underlying provider. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

For a simple tool with three parameters, rich safety annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance distinguishing reverse_geocode from geocode, but this is partially mitigated by the tool name and the description's clear phrase 'coordinates into address.'

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only the 'language' parameter described. The description does not compensate for the low coverage: it says 'coordinates' without clarifying coordinate format (e.g., WGS84) or adding meaning to latitude/longitude beyond what the property names and numeric ranges already imply. It also omits any mention of the language parameter's effect.

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 ('converts') and resource ('coordinates into the nearest address or place name'), making the tool's purpose unmistakably reverse geocoding. The name itself also clearly differentiates from the sibling geocode tool, even without an explicit comparison.

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 description implies the core use case: provide latitude/longitude and get a location name. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over the sibling geocode tool or any other alternative, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between forward and reverse geocoding.

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