place_located_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool returns specific data types (coordinates, population, elevation), has data quality dependencies on Wikidata's 'locatedIn' relation, and includes a call-to-action for reporting issues. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error handling, or response format details.

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 appropriately sized with two well-structured sentences: the first clearly states the tool's purpose and return data, the second provides important behavioral context about data dependencies. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality first. Minor points deducted for slightly awkward formatting with extra spaces and the parenthetical '(if available)' could be more concise.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does and its data dependencies. However, it doesn't describe the return format structure, doesn't explain what happens when no containing place exists, and doesn't provide examples of typical responses. The Wikidata dependency note is valuable context but doesn't fully compensate for missing output information.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (placeId), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what format placeId should be in, provide examples beyond the empty schema example, or clarify how it relates to the administrative containment query.

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 details for the containing populated place' with specific examples (county or administrative division) and data types (coordinates, population, elevation). It distinguishes from siblings like 'place_details' by focusing on administrative containment rather than general place details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'city_located_in' which appears to be a similar sibling.

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 implied usage context through the Wikidata dependency note, suggesting this tool should be used when administrative containment data is needed and warning about data reliability issues. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'admin_division_details' or 'city_located_in', nor does it provide clear exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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