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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it names the underlying Wikidata properties (P840 vs P915), describes the `relation` and `countries_only` fields, and states a hard limitation (no scene-level data). It discloses provenance and caveats an agent needs to answer honestly, which is exactly the kind of context structured fields don't supply here.

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 and scope are front-loaded, and the two critical caveats (set-vs-filmed, honest gap reporting) are called out explicitly. It is somewhat verbose with the metatextual 'two things to carry into any answer' framing, but nearly every sentence delivers actionable guidance, so the length is largely justified.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns (places with coordinates, country-only records, a `relation` field) and its semantic limits. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't say how a missing/ambiguous title behaves or mention result ordering, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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%, so both `title` (with slug examples) and `limit` (default 50, max 200) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3 for full schema 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: give a film/TV title and get every filming place Wikidata records, with coordinates and country-level fallbacks. It also scopes the corpus precisely (23,531 productions, 31,111 places) and clarifies that games/anime are included as SET locations, which an agent could not guess from the name alone. This cleanly separates it from the sibling tools that go the reverse direction (what_was_filmed_here).

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (any title, including games/anime) and strong interpretive rules: use `relation` to distinguish filmed-at from set-in, and report `countries_only` as a known gap rather than guessing. It does not explicitly name or contrast the alternatives (e.g. what_was_filmed_here, search_productions), so routing between siblings is left partly to inference.

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