geocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the backing service (Nominatim OpenStreetMap), which signals an external API call, but omits any mention of rate limits, latency, failure behavior, or result ordering. It adds context but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the input concept front-loaded and the output plus data source trailing. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the params are fully covered by the schema. However, with zero annotations the description should say more about external-service behavior (rate limits, failure modes) for a tool that depends on a third-party API.

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%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already documented in the schema with types, defaults, and bounds. The description only restates the query concept and adds nothing about the limit parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: takes a city name or address and returns latitude/longitude coordinates. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the unrelated siblings (calc, get-weather, now_time), though it does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from.

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 usage by describing the input (city name or address), but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Nothing addresses error cases (e.g., unresolvable queries) or when to prefer another tool.

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