osint_geoint_lookup

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only lookup, whether it hits external services, what rate limits or auth apply, or what happens with ambiguous queries. It does convey the conceptual shape of the result (a hierarchy), which is the only behavioral signal present.

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 with a short label prefix and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the coverage gaps rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, which lightens the burden. Against that, the tool has three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a near-duplicate sibling, none of which the description addresses.

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 0% across three parameters. The description implicitly tells the agent that location_query accepts an address, landmark, or street, but says nothing about what `limit` controls (result count?) or what `country_code` constrains, and gives no format expectations for either.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Resolve") with concrete resource types ("any address, landmark, or street") and names the output ("global administrative hierarchy"), so the operation is immediately legible. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling osint_location_entity_search, leaving the agent to guess which is appropriate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the closest alternative, osint_location_entity_search, despite that sibling appearing in the tool list. The agent is left to infer selection purely from the tool name.

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