smart_geocode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning address parsing, multiple search strategies, and returning 'multiple candidates,' but it stops short of explaining what strategies are used or how ambiguous inputs are handled.

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 compact and organized into purpose, args, and returns, with no filler or repetition. The main geocoding capability is front-loaded and the parameter explanation is direct, though a small example would have made it even more useful.

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 only one parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values in depth. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search/geocoding tools, and the vague 'multiple search strategies' leaves behavioral ambiguity. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It does add meaning beyond the schema by defining address_or_description as 'Full address or location description,' but this is minimal and lacks examples, format constraints, or clarification about what kind of descriptions are acceptable.

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 performs 'geocoding' with 'address parsing and multiple search strategies,' which identifies the core function of converting an address or description into geocode candidates. It is more specific than a bare verb+resource but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_osm_elements or get_place_info.

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 implies the tool accepts a full address or location description, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose smart_geocode over related tools such as parse_natural_language_osm_request, validate_coordinates, or search_osm_elements. There are no exclusions, alternative references, or context-based selection criteria.

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