castles

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses sorting order, distance output, and radius limits. Does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'landmark', but covers essential behavioral traits.

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 sentences with no fluff. Purpose stated first, followed by defaults and usage guidance. 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?

Provides sufficient context for a simple list tool: coordinate system, radius, sorting, output field. Lacks details on result structure (other fields) and error handling, but adequate for typical use.

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 40% (2/5 params). Description adds value by clarifying latitude/longitude as WGS84 and radius defaults/max. However, category parameter (with enum) is not explained, and limit default is only in schema. Partially compensates for low coverage.

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 describes the action: listing landmarks (castles) near a WGS84 coordinate, sorted by distance, with distance_km in results. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying geocoding prerequisite and proximity search.

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 instructs to geocode the place before calling, providing clear usage context. Does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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?

With no annotations, the description lists the exact data fields returned (coordinates, founding year, etc.), implying a read-only fetch. Slightly less than perfect because it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made or that it is idempotent.

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 efficient sentences: first packs the action and output, second provides essential usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates return fields. Parameter is fully explained, and alternative tool is suggested. Complete for a simple lookup 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?

The only parameter 'castle' has a schema description that says 'Slug (preferred) or exact name', and the tool description reinforces this with an example ('palace-of-versailles'). Adds value beyond the schema by clarifying preference for slug over exact name.

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 'Fetch' and the resource 'one landmark's full record', with specific fields enumerated. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_castles' (slug lookup) and 'castles_near' (geospatial search).

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 advises to call 'search_castles' if uncertain of the slug, providing a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use boundary.

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 discloses that statistics are 'computed live from the atlas,' indicating real-time computation. It lists the categories of statistics included (totals, extremes, etc.) but does not mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, this level of detail is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function: first sentence lists content, second provides a use case and reference. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters and lack of output schema, the description fully captures the tool's purpose and output. It also provides a real-world usage example and a link to more details, making it complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. Per the rule, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds value by explaining what is returned, beyond the empty 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 provides 'headline statistics computed live from the atlas' and enumerates specific outputs like totals by type, top countries, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., search_castles, get_castle) by focusing on aggregate data rather than individual entries.

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 implicitly guides usage by framing the tool as 'the source for claims like...' which suggests when to use it for statistical questions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives among siblings.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the output: country name, ISO code per row, and a URL for browsing country pages. It also confirms sorting and that the list is complete. No destructive behavior is expected.

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, densely packed with useful information. Front-loaded with the key question it answers. Every word earns its place.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, its sort order, and provides a hint for further navigation via the URL.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly omits any.

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 it lists every country in the atlas with its landmark count, sorted most first, and explicitly answers the specific question 'which country has the most castles' (France). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_castle' or 'top_castles' by being a complete listing.

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 implies usage for obtaining a comprehensive list of countries with landmark counts, especially to identify the country with the most castles. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, though the sibling list offsets this.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a random record and can filter by country, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only or idempotent. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes key details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema). The description covers the basic functionality and use cases. No additional information is necessary for proper use.

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 100% (the parameter is already well-documented in the schema as 'Country name or ISO code (optional)'). The description adds 'optionally limited to a country' which mirrors the schema, providing no extra depth. 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?

The description explicitly states the tool returns 'One random landmark with its full record' with an optional country filter. It lists specific use cases (discovery, quizzes, 'castle of the day') and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_castles and get_castle by emphasizing randomness.

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 clear context with use cases ('for discovery, quizzes and "castle of the day" features'), implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention 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?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: substring matching (accent/case insensitive), sorting (best-match then fame), output fields (coordinates, century, fame rank, links), and a retry hint. This is thorough without needing annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and options. Every sentence adds value: first covers core functionality, second explains result ordering and output. 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (coordinates, century, fame rank, links). Parameters are well covered, and the tip about retrying fills a gap. Sibling tools are distinct, so context is sufficient.

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 adds minor value by explaining query as substring match and country as name or ISO code, but does not repeat default values or provide additional syntax details 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 searches by name with accent- and case-insensitive substring match, and optionally filters by country and category. It distinguishes from siblings like 'castles_near' (location-based) and 'get_castle' (single castle) by explicitly focusing on name search.

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 implies when to use (name-based search) and provides a practical tip to retry with a shorter fragment if nothing matches. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the context suggests this is the go-to for name searches.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains the ordering algorithm (fame rank based on Wikipedia language coverage and readership) and gives an example (Palace of Versailles). Does not discuss rate limits or auth, but sufficient for a read-only list tool.

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 functionality. Every sentence adds value: defines the tool's output and ranking, then clarifies the use case. No extraneous information.

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 low complexity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description fully covers the tool's functionality: ranking logic, filtering options, and answer to common queries. No gaps identified.

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 67% (limit not described). Description adds context to country and category by explaining their filtering role. Limit is standard and implied by 'most famous', but could be more explicit.

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 returns the most famous landmarks ordered by Castlemap fame rank, with optional filtering by country and/or category. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_castles by focusing on 'most famous' and direct answer to specific queries.

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?

Provides clear usage context: filter by country and/or category, direct answer to 'most famous castles in <country>'. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined.

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