zornade_geocode_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the data source, the type of matches returned (WGS84 coordinates, postal code, municipality, province, region), and a key limitation (no POI search). This is strong context beyond basic function.

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?

Three focused sentences deliver the core purpose, data source, return fields, and a critical limitation with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter geocoding tool with no output schema, the description supplies all necessary context: what it searches, where it searches, what it returns, and what it intentionally excludes. An agent can confidently decide whether to invoke it without additional detail.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with examples and constraints, so the baseline is solid. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that 'q' is a street name for address geocoding and that the archive does not support POI searches, reinforcing correct parameter usage.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Forward geocoding for Italian addresses' and specifies the ANNCSU street archive. It also differentiates itself from reverse geocoding and POI lookup, making its purpose 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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: when searching by street name and optionally municipality, and explicitly warns against using it for points of interest. It does not explicitly name the reverse-geocoding sibling as the alternative for coordinate-based lookups, though 'Forward geocoding' implies the distinction.

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