maps_regeocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the transformation but does not disclose behavior such as read-only nature, required API keys, rate limits, or coordinate format requirements. Minimal disclosure for a tool that likely involves external API calls.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words, but brevity sacrifices detail that could be added without padding.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the main purpose but lacks details on output structure and parameter format, which would help the agent invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description adds some meaning by specifying that the 'location' parameter is a Gaode coordinate. However, it does not clarify the expected format (e.g., 'lng,lat') or provide examples, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 converts a Gaode coordinate to administrative division address info, distinguishing it from sibling tools like maps_geo (address to coordinates) and maps_search_detail (POI search). The verb '转换' and resource '经纬度坐标' are specific, but the output could be more precisely defined.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., maps_geo for reverse geocoding or maps_search_detail for location details). The description implies usage but does not explicitly state context or exclusions.

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