DaedalMap Administrative Boundaries (loc_id to polygon)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral details: returns default bbox+centroid, optionally polygon when include_polygon is true, and warns polygon can be large. No cost implication is also stated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value (purpose, use cases, cost note). No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return values (bbox, centroid, polygon) and gives usage context. It also mentions cost. A bit more detail on output format would help, but overall sufficient for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description reinforces the behavior of include_polygon but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 clearly states the tool returns the geographic extent (bounding box, centroid, and optionally polygon) for a given loc_id, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_catalog, get_pack, loc_id_info) by focusing on geography utility.

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 explicit guidance on when to use bbox vs polygon (e.g., bbox for clipping/indexing, polygon only when exact perimeter needed, noting polygon can be large). It also mentions no payment required. No explicit mention of when not to use, but given sibling tools are different, this is adequate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no side effects. The description adds 'Free discovery' which implies no cost or authentication needed, but does not add significant behavioral details beyond the annotation.

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?

Extremely concise: two phrases with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key purpose. 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 list-retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what it returns but not the structure of the list. Given the presence of get_pack as a sibling, this might be sufficient as an entry point, but could be more complete.

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?

No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-param tools.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a list of live agent-ready data packs. Verb 'returns' is specific, and resource 'list of data packs' is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pack, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_pack or get_boundary. For a discovery tool, it would help to mention that this should be used first to get the catalog, then drill down with other tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description adds value by stating 'Free discovery' and listing returned items. No contradictions, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like auth or 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence is essential; no waste.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. Could mention return format, but not necessary for a simple tool.

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%, with the parameter description already listing valid pack_ids. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it returns detailed metadata for one pack. The verb 'returns' and resource 'metadata for one pack' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_boundary, get_catalog, loc_id_info) by focusing on pack details.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Call this before querying a new pack'. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context implies it is a preparatory step. Sibling tools are different, so no confusion.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by listing the exact fields in the response (name, admin level, etc.), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. However, it does not mention any potential rate limits, authentication needs, or edge cases (e.g., invalid loc_ids).

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence gives a quick tagline, the second provides all essential detail. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, single query), the description adequately covers the return fields and the fact that it's free. With no output schema, the listing of returned fields is essential. Minor omission: no mention of behavior for invalid loc_ids or encoding, but this does not significantly hinder completeness for a simple lookup tool.

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 already describes both parameters (loc_id and request_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds only a minor example ('USA-CA') which is already implied by the schema description. No additional semantic guidance is provided, so the description does not significantly enhance the schema.

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 verb ('returns'), the resource ('descriptive metadata for a DaedalMap loc_id'), and lists the specific fields returned (name, admin level, parent, centroid, bounding box, child counts). This makes it highly specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_boundary or get_catalog which serve different purposes.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (get_boundary, get_catalog, get_pack). It only states that it is 'free' and 'returns descriptive metadata', but does not indicate prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage context from the tool's name alone.

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