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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: no geometry is loaded, no full dataset is retained, and there is no payment requirement. These go beyond the annotation and set correct expectations for a stateless read operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core function and well organized, but 'Free dataset-orchestration utility' and the trailing 'No payment required' are somewhat redundant, and the caller-constraint sentence is slightly wordy.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description does supply return semantics ('ranked bindings for identifier columns or coordinate pairs') and the free/stateless nature, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the half of parameters (request_id, dataset_context) left undocumented, which the description does not compensate for.

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 50%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely characterizes the 'columns' input as bounded samples from plausible scalar columns, matching the maxItems constraint, but adds no syntax or format detail for request_id, country_scope, or dataset_context beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it determines which column contains geography and identifies the reference system, country, and administrative level. It distinguishes the task from pure parsing ('caller performs only structural parsing and sampling'). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling identify_reference_system, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for datasets with plausible scalar columns where geographic meaning is not yet assigned, and 'it must not assign geographic meaning in advance' is a precondition. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative despite close siblings like identify_reference_system and resolve_reference.

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