country_places

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the places,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence: 'Get the places in the given country.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It adequately states the purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output information. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively is incomplete, placing it at the minimum viable level.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., 'types' specifies allowed values, 'minPopulation' explains filtering). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get the places in the given country.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('places'), and the scope ('in the given country') is explicit. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'places', 'country_region_places', or 'admin_divisions', which might offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of sibling tools (e.g., 'places' or 'country_region_places') or specific contexts where this tool is preferred, such as filtering by country versus other geographic scopes. Without such information, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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