Describe 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 covered structurally. The description only adds that the output is an address broken into province/city/neighbourhood, which is largely duplicated by the existing output schema, so it contributes little behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core operation front-loaded before the usage note. No filler or repetition; only slight room to sharpen by naming an alternative tool.

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?

With a full output schema and fully described parameters, the description only needs to convey purpose and usage, which it does. Coverage of out-of-range coordinate behavior is handled by the schema bounds, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% – both lat and long carry range constraints and examples in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format or semantics for the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and transformation: describe coordinates as an address with province, city and neighbourhood. This is unambiguous and clearly a reverse-geocoding operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from tl_find_location, but no sibling overlaps the coordinate-to-address direction, so the risk of mis-selection is low.

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?

Gives two concrete when-to-use scenarios (confirming a delivery point with the user, getting the city for shipping rules), which is above the minimum-viable bar. It does not name an alternative or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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