Reverse Geocode Coordinates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds beyond that: mentions read-only nature ('no side effects'), requires API key ('STHAN_API_KEY'), rate limit, and free tier availability. It also states failure returns an error message but doesn't specify format. Overall good transparency.

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, each adding essential information. Front-loaded with purpose. No redundant or verbose content.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, alternatives, side effects, authentication, and error behavior. It is fully adequate 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions (latitude, longitude with min/max). The description does not add further semantic detail beyond confirming the coordinate pair. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the action (Convert coordinates to address), the resource (US street address), and lists specific return fields (address, distance, accuracy, confidence). It directly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'sthan_geocode' by specifying the reverse direction.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you have coordinates and need the closest address.' Also explicitly names the alternative for the opposite operation: 'To go the other way (address to coordinates) use sthan_geocode.' Additionally notes US-only coverage as a limitation.

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