ExplorersMap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces the idempotent behavior, adding clarity that repeated calls won't cause errors, and mentions it accepts two input formats, which is useful beyond the schema. It doesn't contradict 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?

Three short sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then input format and idempotency. Zero redundancy, every sentence carries useful signal for an agent.

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 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, how to input, and the idempotency guarantee. It could optionally mention what happens if the country is already visited, but the idempotency hint implies it's safe, so completeness is high but not perfect.

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%, with both parameters documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only reinforcing the country format (ISO-2 or name) which is already in the schema. It doesn't add detail about the notes parameter beyond what schema provides, so 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?

Clearly states the action (mark as visited), the resource (country), and the input format (ISO-2 code or name). Distinguishes from siblings like remove_country and add_place by explicitly focusing on countries and the visited status.

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 in a travel-tracking context and mentions idempotency, which guides when to call it repeatedly. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like add_region or add_place, though the name and scope are clear enough for most agents.

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=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds little behavioral context beyond the basic 'mark as visited' action, but it does not contradict the 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a concrete list of place examples and a clear pointer to search_places.

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 low-complexity tool with only 2 parameters, a fully documented schema, and safe annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens on duplicate visits or how output is returned, but nothing essential appears to be missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline applies. The description reinforces that the place parameter comes from search_places, but the schema already documents this and the notes parameter, so the description adds no substantial semantic value 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a specific place as visited' and gives examples of what counts as a place. It is clear enough on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like add_places_to_trip or add_country.

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 context: use this when marking a specific place as visited and pass an id from search_places. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer how this differs from add_places_to_trip, add_country, and add_region.

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 establish that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds that only already-marked places are attachable, but it does not disclose whether repeated calls append or overwrite, or how invalid ids are handled. This is acceptable for a simple association operation but not richly 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the only necessary input-source guidance. Every part earns its place and there is 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description plus schema gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly. It could mention response or error behavior, but that is not essential for this operation.

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 the schema already provides good descriptions for both parameters, including an example and a note that countries and regions are not attachable. The description adds a useful workflow pointer by directing the agent to list_visited for visit ids, going slightly 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 uses a specific verb, 'attach', and clearly states the object ('places you have already marked') and target ('a trip'). It also points to list_visited as the source of visit ids, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_place, add_country, and add_region.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: places must already be marked, and visit ids must come from list_visited. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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?

Descriptions explicitly state idempotency, repeating what the idempotentHint annotation already says, but also add the behavioral detail that it accepts region id or name plus country. The level parameter's default is not mentioned in the description, which is a minor gap, but idempotency is valuable and consistent with 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the idempotency note is useful without 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 tool's simplicity (one required param, no nested objects), the description is adequate. It lacks mention of the level parameter's default and the notes parameter, but these are documented in the schema. No output schema is expected for a mutation tool, so return value is not a gap.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds the alias between region and name, but the parameter descriptions are clear. The description does not explain the default behavior for 'level' beyond the schema's 'Default visited', which is already there.

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?

Clear verb-resource pair ('Mark ... as visited') and explicitly names the accepted inputs (region id or name plus country). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_country and add_place, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 marking a region visited, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus add_country or add_place, nor any discussion of prerequisites or constraints such as needing an existing trip.

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=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond repeating the visibility default ('Private by default') that is already in the schema. No mention of return value, side effects, or authentication requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler or redundancy. 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?

For a create operation with four parameters, the schema covers parameter semantics, but the description omits return value expectations and possible date-ordering validation rules. It is adequate for a minimal create tool but leaves minor gaps that could matter to an agent.

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%, with each parameter fully documented including format and defaults. The description restates 'title and date range' without adding any new meaning, meeting the baseline of 3 but providing no bonus value.

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 specific verb 'Create' and resource 'a trip' with key fields 'title and date range.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_trip or add_country which operate on components of a trip.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions. An agent would infer it from context rather than direct guidance.

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 carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description earns credit for going beyond them: it discloses the non-obvious side effect that places survive the deletion, that the deletion is permanent, and that confirm:true is a required consent gate. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond boolean hints, and nothing contradicts the 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the key side effect, and the input requirements. The most decision-relevant fact (permanence) is front-loaded before increasingly specific details.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: consent flow, irreversibility, and the survival of places are all disclosed, and the schema fully covers parameters. The only minor gap is that success/error return semantics are not described, which is low-impact for a straightforward deletion.

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% and both parameter descriptions are strong — tripId requires the exact id from list_trips and rejects titles/labels, and confirm documents the ask-the-user-first contract. The description mirrors these constraints ('Requires the exact trip id and confirm:true') without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a trip') and clarifies the exact scope: only the grouping is removed while places stay marked on the map. This side-effect statement implicitly separates it from the remove_place/remove_country/remove_region siblings, which operate on map entities rather than trip groupings.

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?

Clear context is given: the operation requires the exact trip id and an explicit confirm:true, and the schema adds that the user must be asked first because the action cannot be undone from here. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are scoped to 'this account' and ordered 'newest first', which is beyond the annotations, but it does not mention response format, pagination, or account authentication requirements.

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 a single, compact sentence that fronts the key information (achievements, account scope, ordering). Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and the order. It lacks explicit notes on output schema or edge cases (e.g., no badges), but the low complexity makes this a minor gap rather than a blocking issue.

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 tool has 0 parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, this dimension deserves a 4; the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail.

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 identifies the resource (badges/achievements) and the scope (this account), plus the sort order (newest first). It avoids tautology and is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_rank and get_stats, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description implies you use it to retrieve the current account's achievements, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. There are no close sibling tools competing for the same purpose, reducing the need for explicit routing.

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 establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by clarifying that this operates on 'this account' and describes what the returned data includes, without contradicting 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 compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence adds value. It includes output details and usage examples without unnecessary filler.

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 read-only tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, scope, board choices, and return components. An agent has enough context to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum parameter is already described in the schema. The description restates the available board options but does not add significant new meaning 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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving this account's position on a global leaderboard, including the ranked value and total number of ranked explorers. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_stats, get_badges, and list_visited.

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 explicitly gives use cases: answering 'where do I rank' and comparing progress over time. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context: it is account-scoped, summary-level, and enumerates the metrics included. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are apparent.

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 well-structured sentence packs the resource, metrics, use case, and positioning relative to next-step suggestions. Every clause adds value, with no repetition of schema or annotation 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only summary tool, the description fully covers invocation context. It names the returned metric categories and the primary use case, so an agent can decide to call it without needing 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?

The tool has zero parameters, making the schema trivially complete at 100% coverage. Per the 0-param baseline, the description is not required to explain parameters, and it doesn't need to; there is nothing to document.

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 returns a summary of the account's map: countries, territories, regions, places, Explorer score, and world explored. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_badges, get_rank, and list_visited, which serve different reporting purposes.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to answer 'how many countries have I been to' and as the quickest way to assess user standing before suggesting additions. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, but the use-case framing is clear enough.

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 establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, pagination via total/returned, and using nextOffset to continue reading.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives the only behavioral detail an agent needs, pagination.

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 list tool with no required parameters and annotations covering safety, this description is complete. It supplies ordering and pagination semantics, which compensates for the absence of 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so limit and offset are already well documented. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the pagination workflow: compare total to returned and follow nextOffset, which helps the agent use offset 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 clearly identifies the resource (the user's trips) and the ordering (newest first), with the title supplying the 'list' verb. It is distinctive enough among the siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar read tools like list_visited or search_places.

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 context is clear: this tool is for reading the user's trips, and the paging instruction gives actionable guidance on how to traverse all results. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, which keeps it just shy of a perfect score.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, the `total`/`returned`/`nextOffset` pagination contract, and the filtering hint.

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 terse, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination instruction earns its place because it is essential for correct iteration.

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 read-only list tool with a small required enum and fully specified parameters, the description sufficiently explains ordering, filtering, and pagination even without an output schema. An agent can page through all results by following `nextOffset` and comparing `total` to `returned`.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, an enum, and defaults. The description reinforces offset behavior via `nextOffset` and motivates `type`, but does not need to add per-parameter semantics.

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 specific verb ('list') and resource ('everything marked as visited'), and adds ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `list_trips`, since the object is visited items rather than trips.

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 the use case: retrieve visited items and optionally narrow by `type` to reduce payload size. It does not explicitly route around sibling tools such as `search_places` or `list_trips`, so the agent must infer selection from name and context.

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?

Beyond annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: unmarking an unmarked country is not an error, and the operation lowers the user's score, warranting confirmation. This complements the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, parameter format, and key behavioral cautions. Every sentence provides distinct value with no filler or 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?

For a 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted input format, idempotency, side effects, and a safety confirmation requirement. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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% and the description essentially restates the schema's 'ISO-2 code or name' parameter semantics. It adds no new detail such as case sensitivity, normalization, or error behavior 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Unmark a country', and explicitly ties it to undo add_country. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling operations like remove_place and remove_region.

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 a clear context: use this to undo add_country and unmark a country. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, but naming the inverse operation gives sufficient guidance for a simple 1-parameter tool.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: it lowers the user's score and requires confirmation before removing unrequested items. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the consequence of the action. It doesn't contradict 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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, the input format is stated, and the caution is placed at the end. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, input format, and a key side effect (score decrease). It doesn't describe the return value, but with no output schema and a simple action, that's a minor gap. The confirmation warning adds important context for safe 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'place' parameter. The description adds the useful detail that the value can be either a place id or an exact name, which is a slight enhancement over the schema's 'A place id, or its exact name.' Since the schema already covers this, the description adds minimal extra value, warranting a baseline 3.

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 'Unmark' and the resource 'a specific place such as a monument, museum, airport or city', and explicitly frames it as undoing add_place. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_country and remove_region, which target different resource types.

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 explicitly says it accepts a place id from search_places or the exact place name, which tells the agent how to obtain the input. It also warns to confirm before removing anything the user did not name, providing a clear when-to-use caution. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the 'undoing add_place' phrasing and the sibling list make the relationship clear.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: it is idempotent (unmarking never-marked is not an error) and it lowers the user's score, which is a behavioral consequence not captured in annotations. It also advises confirmation before removing items the user did not name, which is actionable guidance. The description does not contradict 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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: defining the action, specifying input formats, and noting idempotency and a caution. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every sentence earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. It adds the score-lowering consequence and the confirmation advice, which are important for an agent to know. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return value, but there is no output schema and the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical omission.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (region and country). The description adds a bit of meaning by explaining that region can be an id or a name, and that country is used to disambiguate names used in several countries. This is helpful but not extensive; the schema already covers the core semantics, so a 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Unmark a state, province or département, undoing add_region.' It specifies the resource (region) and the action (unmark/remove), and distinguishes it from siblings like remove_country and remove_place by focusing on regions. The mention of 'undoing add_region' further clarifies its relationship to a sibling tool.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: to unmark a region, and provides the accepted input formats (region id or name plus country). It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Unmarking something that was never marked is not an error,' which prevents unnecessary calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and the 'undoing add_region' phrasing imply the alternative is add_region, which is sufficient.

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?

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description reveals non-obvious search behavior: partial-name matching ('short beats formal'), the concrete example 'Louvre' vs 'Musee du Louvre', and the type-overlap nuance where excluded types still return under otherTypes. These are exactly the details an agent needs to avoid failed or misleading searches.

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 compact and information-dense: four sentences covering purpose, usage, matching behavior, and type-filter caveat. Every sentence adds something operationally useful, with the purpose front-loaded before the caveats.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool finds, why to use it (get an id for add_place), how matching behaves, and how type filters interact with results. The agent has enough context to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds extra meaning around query (partial matching, 'short beats formal') and type (narrows but does not decide), which supplements the schema. It does not add detail for country or limit, but the high schema coverage keeps the baseline at 3 and the added matching context justifies a 4.

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 and resource ('Find places in the 90,000-entry database') and lists the covered categories, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also explicitly frames the tool as a prerequisite for add_place ('Use this to get an id before add_place'), which distinguishes it from sibling creation 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 gives a clear invocation context: search for a place to get its id before calling add_place. It does not discuss when not to use the tool or compare it to alternative search tools, but no search sibling exists in the list, so this is a minor gap.

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 indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: private trips are visible only to the owner, and making a trip public exposes its title, dates, and places to anyone. This goes beyond the structured annotations and warns about a privacy consequence.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the privacy scope, and the mandatory consent caveat. The key behavior is front-loaded and the warning is placed last without 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?

For a simple two-parameter setter with an enum and idempotency annotation, the combination of schema, annotations, and description is fully sufficient. The agent knows what the tool does, what the parameters mean, when to ask the user, and what the privacy implications are. No output schema is necessary for such a state-changing operation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters fully: tripId is 'From list_trips' and visibility has an enum with an explanation. The description does not add deeper parameter-level semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Publish a trip on the user's public profile, or take it private again.' This identifies the verb, resource, and state change. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the behavior is distinct enough from create_trip, delete_trip, and set_visit_dates.

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 includes an important usage instruction: 'Always ask before making a trip public, since it then shows the trip's title, dates and places to anyone.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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 establish idempotence and non-destructiveness, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the operation does not change the score, which is a meaningful side-effect guarantee beyond the 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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no fluff. The main action is stated first, and the important caveat about score preservation is added in the second sentence.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and informative annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral details: what is being set, the precondition, and a key non-effect. An agent has enough information to decide whether and how to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both visitId and dates. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries the weight.

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 ('set') and resource ('travel dates on something already marked as visited'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The phrase 'already marked as visited' differentiates it from creation/add tools, and 'Does not change score' removes ambiguity about side effects.

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 clearly communicates the context in which the tool is appropriate: the target must already be marked as visited. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the precondition is strong enough to guide an agent toward correct invocation.

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 signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by mentioning that it returns account ownership and today's fair-use quota, which are behavioral details not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 a single concise sentence that captures both key outputs without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes quota status as a secondary detail.

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 zero-parameter read-only utility, the description is reasonably complete: it names the account identity and quota as the relevant outputs. Minor details like quota units or exact return formatting are absent, but the low complexity and strong annotations reduce the need for further elaboration.

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 tool has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter clarity is trivially satisfied. The description appropriately focuses on the output semantics rather than parameters.

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 what the tool reports: the identity of the connected ExplorersMap account and the remaining fair-use quota. It is clear and specific, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly differentiate from 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 intended use is implied: an agent would call this to identify the current account or check quota before performing other operations. There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the zero-parameter, self-contained nature makes the usage context fairly obvious.

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