place_reverse

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive hints, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining how the zoom parameter changes the granularity of results (building to country), which is not captured by the annotations alone. This goes beyond the minimal requirement and gives the agent a clear mental model of output variation.

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 concise, with the primary purpose stated in the first sentence, followed by a brief explanation of its relationship to place_geocode and concrete use cases. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. The zoom tip is placed at the end, effectively closing with actionable guidance.

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 presence of an output schema (has_output_schema=true) and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects for correct invocation: purpose, use cases, inverse relationship, and zoom behavior. No missing prerequisites or error conditions are critical for an agent to use this tool safely and 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%, so both parameters are documented. The description enhances the zoom parameter by providing a practical usage hint ('lower the zoom to get city, region or country instead of a street address'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Detail level' list. It also reinforces that location accepts multiple notations, tying back to the schema description.

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 action ('Find the address or place name') and resource (at a set of coordinates), clearly distinguishing it from siblings by explicitly naming it the inverse of place_geocode. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately differentiates the tool from place_search or coordinate conversion tools.

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?

It provides explicit use cases ('labelling GPS traces, describing a delivery destination, or identifying the administrative area a position falls in') and names the inverse sibling (place_geocode), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The zoom tip ('lower the zoom to get city, region or country') further guides selection based on granularity needed.

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