amap_geocode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately discloses the core behaviors: forward geocoding returns coordinates, reverse geocoding returns a structured address. It also sets expectations about the input/output relationship, though it omits potential edge cases like ambiguous addresses or rate limits.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core conversion capability, and the second sentence provides a clear usage tip. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema: it explains both directions, mentions the return types, and positions the tool within the broader workflow. It could specify more about return format or failure behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it 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 descriptions already cover all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the description adds limited extra semantic value. It reinforces which parameter to use for which direction, and adds the contextual note about narrowing city scope, but the schema already provides examples and explanations. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: converting between addresses and coordinates, with explicit mention of both directions. It distinguishes itself from sibling direction/POI tools by framing itself as a preliminary step for path planning.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: before any route planning to obtain start/end coordinates. It also explains the two usage modes (address-provided or location-provided), giving practical guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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