DaedalMap Geocoding and Reverse Geocoding (loc_id)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about being a free utility, no payment required, and that the polygon can be large, which are useful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences, efficient and front-loaded: main function, advice, warning, and 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 the lack of an output schema, the description covers the main return values (bbox, centroid, polygon) and provides usage guidance. Could specify coordinate format (e.g., [minLon, minLat, maxLon, maxLat]) but overall sufficient for a utility 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameters by giving examples for loc_id and explaining the default and size impact of include_polygon, but does not add significant new information 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the geographic extent (bbox, centroid, optional polygon) of a DaedalMap loc_id, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like loc_id_info and loc_id_hierarchy by focusing on geometry.

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: using bbox for clipping/indexing vs requesting polygon only for exact perimeter, and notes the polygon can be large. It does not directly compare with sibling tools but the context is helpful.

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's 'Free discovery' reinforces the read-only nature. However, the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as caching, pagination, or return format. With minimal parameters, the burden is low, but some extra context would be beneficial.

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 brief and front-loaded with the key action. The phrase 'Free discovery' is slightly vague and could be integrated into the main sentence, but overall it is concise without unnecessary 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?

For a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it lacks details on the output format or how to use the returned list in conjunction with sibling tools like get_pack. It is minimally complete but not fully informative.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage (vacuous). The description does not need to explain parameters, meeting the baseline of 4 for no parameters.

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' and the resource 'list of live agent-ready data packs available on DaedalMap'. It is specific about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pack, which likely returns a single pack.

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 mentions 'Free discovery' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_pack for specific packs). There is no explicit instruction on when not to use it or what prerequisites exist.

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 safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by noting it is a 'Free discovery' operation and specifies what data is returned. No contradictions, and it reinforces the read-only nature.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose (what it returns) and then provide usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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, single-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No output schema is needed, and the guidance is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already thoroughly describes the pack_id parameter with examples. The description adds limited new semantics beyond implying the importance of the parameter (e.g., 'one pack'). Given 100% schema coverage, the description does not significantly enhance 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 uses specific verbs ('Returns detailed metadata...') and distinctly identifies the resource ('one pack'). It also provides clear context on what is returned (metadata, coverage, freshness, guidance, examples). There is no tautology, and it distinguishes the tool implicitly from siblings by its specific function.

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 states when to call the tool: 'before querying a new pack so you can see time shape, coverage limits, and the paste-ready first query.' While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, the positive guidance is clear and actionable.

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?

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it returns parent, ancestor chain, and children summary. It also notes 'no payment required.' No contradiction with annotations. The description is consistent and transparent about the tool's read-only nature and output 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?

The description is three sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, the second adds usage guidance, and the third mentions cost. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (parent, ancestor chain, children summary). It covers the essentials for a navigation utility. However, it could specify the structure or format of the response for completeness.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (loc_id and request_id). The description adds minimal extra value, e.g., the example 'USA-CA-037' for loc_id, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 administrative hierarchy (parent, ancestor chain, children summary) for a DaedalMap loc_id. It uses specific verbs ('returns', 'walk up or down') and distinguishes from siblings by framing it as a 'free geography utility' focused on hierarchy navigation.

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 use cases: 'walk up or down the loc_id spine and clip to any administrative level.' It implies when to use this tool over siblings, but does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives. Clear context is provided, but exclusions are missing.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'No payment required,' which is a minor behavioral note. No contradictions exist, but other traits like error handling or rate limits are absent. This is adequate given annotations cover safety.

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 a single sentence plus a brief note, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

Although no output schema exists, the description lists the return fields sufficiently. It lacks context on error handling or invalid input, but for a simple data retrieval tool, coverage is nearly complete. The absence of usage context with siblings slightly lowers the score.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 returns descriptive metadata for a DaedalMap loc_id, listing specific fields like name, admin level, parent, etc. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools such as get_boundary or loc_id_hierarchy, but the purpose is well-defined.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only labels it as a 'Free geography utility' without any context for selection or alternatives.

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. Description adds value by stating it is a free utility, no payment required, and describes the return structure (matched country, deepest loc_id, full admin stack). 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?

Three sentences with clear front-loading. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the utility, explaining the conversion and its benefit, and noting the return and cost. 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (country, deepest loc_id, admin stack) and the use case. Minor gap: does not mention pagination or limits, but reverse geocoding is typically single-point.

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% with descriptions for lat, lon, request_id. Description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond stating 'converts latitude/longitude.' 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?

Clearly states the tool does reverse geocoding, converting lat/lon to DaedalMap loc_id administrative chain. Distinguishes from siblings like get_boundary and loc_id_info by focusing on the conversion 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?

Explains when to use: to join spatial data to the loc_id spine. Implies usage context but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use; however, the purpose is clear.

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