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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description needed to add interpretive context — and it does. It defines the four identification classes with criteria, explains the 0-12 confidence rubric as four 0-3 sub-scores, and adds an important caveat: confidence is 'an editorial judgement, not a probability.' That caveat prevents a genuine misinterpretation of the returned data.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by routing guidance, then domain definitions. The description is dense but every block earns its place — the class definitions and confidence rubric are essential context an agent would otherwise lack. Slightly long, but the length is justified by the domain complexity.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description covers the critical semantics: what the data means, how confidence is computed, and how to drill down. Minor gaps remain — pagination, ordering, and whether locale affects returned place names — but these are non-critical for a browse-all tool backed by an output schema.

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 only parameter (locale, an enum with a documented default) is fully described in the schema. The description adds nothing about locale, but it doesn't need to — the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the full documentation burden.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('every place in the Homeric Atlas'), and the exact fields returned (identification class, confidence score, competing identifications count). It is immediately distinguishable from its siblings — both the other list_homeric_* tools and get_homeric_place — because it names the detail tool as its complement.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Use this to browse the atlas; use `get_homeric_place` once you have a slug.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over its sibling and when to switch. No inference is required.

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