Reverse geocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what the output will contain (administrative hierarchy, postal code, OSM metadata), which gives some insight into behavior. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, data source specifics, or that this is a read-only operation. The description adds useful context about output contents but lacks depth on limitations or side effects.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Convert') and clearly states the input and output. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the tool's straightforward functionality.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by listing key output fields (address, administrative hierarchy, postal code, OSM metadata). For a tool with only two parameters, this gives sufficient context for basic usage. However, it omits the exact return format and any edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid coordinates), but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, already explaining latitude and longitude as decimal degrees in WGS84. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the overall purpose, so it does not enhance what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies due to 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 uses a specific verb 'Convert' and identifies the resource 'geographic coordinates' and the output as a 'detailed address and location description'. It explicitly lists output components (administrative hierarchy, postal code, OSM metadata), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like geocode_address, which performs the opposite direction. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 when you have coordinates and need an address, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or comparison to sibling tools such as geocode_address. The context is clear but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it stops short of a 4.

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