geo_lookup

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 implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only, no side effects, or permissions. It also does not describe the return format or any limitations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main action ('Resolve geos by raw IDs') and provide essential details 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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description explains the request format and use case adequately. However, it lacks any description of the response structure (e.g., what names are returned), leaving the agent to infer the output.

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 covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (entity enum, orgId). The description adds crucial meaning by specifying the id format ('CountryCode|adminArea|locality') and the entity values, which is not present in the schema for the 'id' field.

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 resolves geo IDs to names, specifies the request format with id and entity, and implies the output is human-readable names. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_geo' by focusing on resolution rather than 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 explicitly says 'Useful when a report returns geo IDs you want named,' giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like search_geo for searching.

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