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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a solid job: it discloses substring matching, case-insensitivity, acceptance of QIDs, and the specific return contents (lifespan, border snapshots with bounding boxes, links). It does not mention edge cases like empty results or ambiguity, but for a lookup tool the core behavior is transparent.

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 entire description is one focused, front-loaded sentence. Every clause adds useful information: the target resource, the matching behavior, and the return contents. No filler or repetition exists.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers both input forms and the key output categories. It could be slightly stronger by noting whether multiple matches can be returned and how they are presented, but nothing critical is missing.

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, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema: matching is substring and case-insensitive, it covers Wikidata labels and aliases, and QIDs are an accepted form. This helps the agent construct queries correctly.

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 a specific verb ('Look up') tied to a clearly defined resource ('a state or empire'), and specifies multiple access paths: name, labels/aliases, or QID. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the event- and time-oriented sibling 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?

The description makes the main usage context clear: identifying a polity by name or QID. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_events or world_at_year, nor does it state when this tool should not be used. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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