resolve_geography

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The description only states the tool works for specific place types and gives a usage scenario, but does not disclose behaviors like error handling, case sensitivity, or whether it returns multiple matches. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second gives usage guidance. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core function.

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, the description provides essential context about the types of places and the use case. However, it lacks details about error conditions and multiple results, which would improve completeness for an agent. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly adequate.

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 covers one parameter (name) with a description; language has enum and default but no description (50% coverage). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the language parameter, nor does it compensate for the missing parameter description.

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 a place name to a LINDAS IRI, specifying it works for cantons, municipalities, and districts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cantons or query_observations.

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 to use this tool when a user mentions a Swiss place name and needs its IRI to filter cube observations. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance.

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