DaedalMap Administrative Boundaries (loc_id to polygon)

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true. Description adds: default returns bbox+centroid, polygon available with flag, polygon can be large, no payment needed. Contradiction false.

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 efficient sentences. First states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded key info.

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?

Covers purpose, default output, parameter guidance, and performance warning. No output schema but description implies return format (bbox, centroid, polygon). Could detail bbox format but functional.

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 100% but description adds value: explains default false behavior of include_polygon and size implication. Reinforces parameter purpose beyond 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?

Clear verb 'returns' with specific resource 'geographic extent of a DaedalMap loc_id'. Distinguishes from siblings (get_catalog, get_pack, loc_id_info) which are unrelated.

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?

Advises when to use bbox vs polygon ('Use the bbox to clip or index... request polygon only when you need the exact perimeter'). Notes free utility. No explicit alternatives but siblings are different.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. Description adds 'Free discovery' implying no cost/limits and 'live' implying freshness. However, no mention of pagination or output size limits, and no output schema to clarify return structure.

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?

Single sentence with key info front-loaded ('Free discovery'). No fluff.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned and from where. Could mention if the list is exhaustive or paginated, but overall adequate.

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; schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds no param info needed.

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 verb (returns) and resource (list of live agent-ready data packs on DaedalMap). Distinguished from siblings: 'get_boundary' suggests boundaries, 'get_pack' suggests single pack, 'loc_id_info' suggests location data.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use vs alternatives. 'Free discovery' hints at lightweight use, but lacks formal guidance. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more directive.

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 read-only nature is known. The description adds behavioral context: it is a discovery step, returns specific metadata types, and includes first-query examples. No contradictions.

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 'Free discovery'. Every phrase adds value: what it returns, when to call, what to learn. No fluff.

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 1-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return contents. No output schema, but the described return fields suffice. Slightly more detail on output structure would push to 5.

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 has 100% coverage for pack_id, listing possible values. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond mentioning 'one pack'. 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 it returns detailed metadata for one pack, with a specific verb 'Returns'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single pack's metadata, while siblings like get_catalog likely list all packs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, so score 4.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before querying a new pack' and explains what can be learned (time shape, coverage limits, first query). It provides clear context for when to use, but no when-not or alternative siblings are mentioned.

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 read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by emphasizing 'no payment required' and listing the specific return fields, which provides behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with 'Free geography utility,' and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and 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?

Given no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields. It does not mention error handling or response format, but for a simple lookup tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide to use it.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'DaedalMap loc_id' is already in the schema description). However, the description does clarify what the tool returns, which indirectly helps parameter understanding.

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 descriptive metadata for a DaedalMap loc_id, listing specific fields like name, admin level, parent, centroid, bounding box, and child counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_boundary, get_catalog, get_pack) by focusing on location metadata rather than boundaries or catalogs.

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 implies this is for retrieving metadata of a location, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or provide any exclusions. Context is clear but lacks guidance on alternatives.

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