geocode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool uses a free service without API key, returns up to 5 results with specific fields, and requires a query. However, it omits details like rate limits, error handling, or response format beyond the listed fields.

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 concise, using a few short sentences to convey purpose, service, output, and parameter. It is front-loaded with the main action. While efficient, it could eliminate the minor redundancy in listing return fields (already part of output schema).

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 has only one required parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, input, and output informally. Missing aspects like error states or usage limits are minor, as the output schema likely covers structure.

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?

The single parameter 'query' is described as an address or place name with examples ('London', '10 Downing Street'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds essential meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'Query' title. It clarifies the parameter's purpose and typical usage.

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: forward geocoding an address or place name to coordinates. It specifies the service (Nominatim, free, no key) and output fields (lat, lon, display_name, type, importance) with a result limit. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'reverse_geocode' by focusing on forward geocoding.

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 mentions that it uses Nominatim (free, no key), implying suitability for non-commercial use, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on alternative geocoding tools or scenarios where this might not be appropriate.

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