DaedalMap Reverse Geocoding (coordinates to loc_id)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, description adds 'Free discovery' and live data packs context, but no additional behavioral details like rate limits or pagination beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with key phrase 'Free discovery'.

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?

Adequately covers the tool's purpose given no parameters and no output schema; could mention that it returns all packs, but complete enough for a simple discovery 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?

No parameters in schema (0 params, 100% coverage), so description adds no parameter info; baseline 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to explain.

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 it returns a list of live agent-ready data packs on DaedalMap, distinguishing from siblings like get_pack which handles individual packs.

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?

Implied usage ('Free discovery') but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives; no mention of when not to use or comparison to get_pack or resolve_point.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context: 'Free discovery' suggests no side effects or cost. It details what the tool returns, aligning with the read-only nature. No contradictions. Could mention any rate limits or data volume, but not necessary.

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 key info. First sentence states purpose and outputs; second gives usage guidance. No extraneous 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and usage context. It includes enough detail for the agent to select and invoke 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining why the parameter is used ('before querying a new pack'). The schema itself lists valid pack IDs, so the description complements rather than repeats.

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') and identifies the resource ('one pack'). It lists exact items returned (metadata, coverage, freshness, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_catalog (likely lists packs) and resolve_point.

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 says 'Call this before querying a new pack', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of 'Free discovery' implies low cost and the sibling tools are not 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. Description adds value by detailing the return values: matched country, deepest resolved loc_id, admin stack, and notes that no payment is required. 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 concise, front-loaded sentences. First sentence states core function, second explains output and usage, third adds free utility 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?

Provides sufficient context for a simple reverse geocoding tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. Covers purpose, return values (country, loc_id, admin stack), and use case. Could be more complete on output format but 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions already define lat/lon as WGS84 decimal degrees. Description does not add additional meaning beyond stating they are latitude and longitude, and does not mention the optional request_id.

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 verb (converts) and resource (lat/lon to loc_id), with specific mention of reverse geocoding and administrative chain. Distinguishes from siblings get_catalog and get_pack, which are different kinds of tools.

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 the use case: joining spatial data to the loc_id spine used by data packs. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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