Reverse geocode coordinates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /map/reverse-geocode) and tag, which is mild structural context, but says nothing about caching, rate limits, or which geocoding provider answers.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the trailing endpoint/tag line is compact metadata. The opening line merely repeats the title, which is minor redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return value (city, country) and the endpoint semantics. Nothing essential to invoking it is missing, though provider/auth context would round it out.

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 coverage is 100% — both lat and lon are documented with valid ranges — so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates that it takes latitude/longitude coordinates, adding no format or unit nuance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (location information such as city/country) keyed to lat/lon inputs, so the agent can distinguish it from search_places (name-based lookup) or get_reverse_geocoding_state. It never names those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 usage context is implied: you have coordinates and want a human-readable place. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of alternatives like search_places, and no prerequisites (auth, provider availability) stated.

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