Geocode Argentine Address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it explains that multiple candidates may be returned for ambiguous addresses, discloses the data source, and states that no authentication is required. It does not repeat annotation info nor contradict it.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, includes an example, describes output and candidate multiplicity, and ends with data source and authentication. Every sentence adds value and the structure is efficient.

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 geocoding tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, output fields, multi-candidate behavior, data provenance, and auth. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but these are not essential for a basic read-only geocoder with an existing output schema.

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%: both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description repeats the example and output fields but does not add significant new meaning about parameter syntax or behavior. It does note the multi-candidate behavior which relates to the max parameter, but this is not parameter-specific detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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 states a specific verb ('Forward geocode'), a specific resource ('Argentine street address'), and details the output (matching locations with lat/lon, street name/number, province, department, locality). It differentiates from sibling geocoders by explicitly limiting scope to Argentina and naming the data source (INDEC). The example address grounds the purpose clearly.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (for geocoding Argentine addresses) via the geographic scope in the first sentence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent would not confuse it with other geocoders. No misleading guidance is present.

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