geocode_photon

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the use of a public service, fuzzy matching, return fields with CRS, limit defaults and max. Lacks mention of rate limits or authentication, but is otherwise detailed.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, caution, and return structure.

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 2-param tool with output schema, the description covers input purpose, limit behavior, and output fields (name, city, etc.). It omits error handling but is adequate given simplicity. Could mention that output is a list.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions, so description must compensate. It explains the `limit` parameter (default 5, max 10) and implies `query` is the partial input. Adds value beyond schema, though query could be more explicitly defined.

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 geocodes with autocomplete-style fuzzy matching via the Photon service, and distinguishes itself from Nominatim's stricter matching. The verb 'geocode' and resource 'Photon service' are specific, and the contrast with sibling tools is evident.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use: for partial/incomplete input where Nominatim fails. Also warns to be specific to avoid international noise, implying not to use for vague queries. This gives clear usage context and alternatives.

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