geocode_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by noting that the tool returns multiple candidates for ambiguous text, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not discuss whether there are rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid address), or what happens with partial matches, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences long, each adding distinct value: what it does, when to use it, and a key behavioral trait (multiple candidates). It is front-loaded with the primary action. It could be slightly more concise, but there is minimal waste, so a 4 is fair.

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 has an output schema (not shown), so return value details are handled elsewhere. It has low complexity (2 params, 1 required, no enums). The description covers purpose, usage context, and ambiguous input behavior. It misses clarifying the optional region_code parameter, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity. A 4 reflects this minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains that 'address' accepts addresses, landmarks, or plus codes, adding meaning beyond the schema's simple type. It does not explain the optional 'region_code' parameter (e.g., to bias results), which is a gap, but overall the description provides substantial value for the main parameter. Given zero schema coverage, a 4 is justified for compensating well, though not fully.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: converting an address, landmark, or plus code into coordinates, a normalized address, and components. It also mentions handling ambiguous input by returning multiple candidates, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reverse_geocode or validate_address.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before any tool that needs a latitude and longitude,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for specific place lookups where geocode_place_id or autocomplete_places might be better), so it loses one point.

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