geocode_nominatim

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return limit (default 5, max 10), coordinate system (WGS84, EPSG:4326), and output fields (display_name, lat/lon, type, importance). Could mention rate limits or error handling, but still good coverage.

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?

Description is concise (approx. 4 lines), front-loaded with purpose, then details. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (geocoding with output schema and sibling alternatives), the description fully covers input parameters, output structure, and usage context. Provides return fields and coordinate system, meeting the needs for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, but description adds significant meaning: explains 'query' as address/place name, and 'limit' with default and maximum values. This is essential context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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?

Clearly states verb 'geocode' and resource 'address or place name using OpenStreetMap Nominatim', restricted to Poland. Distinguishes from sibling tools by naming geocode_photon and geocode_gugik_prg explicitly.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'For fuzzy/autocomplete-style matching use geocode_photon instead; for Polish government address-point data use geocode_gugik_prg.' Also implies use for standard geocoding queries, with a Poland restriction.

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