outremer_get_territory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'public-data search hints' rather than actual data, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits details such as error handling, network dependencies, or whether the operation is read-only. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. Every element adds value.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and output type, but the term 'public-data search hints' is vague and no output schema exists to clarify the return structure. It also lacks guidance on relationship to sibling tools, making the description sufficient but not fully complete.

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 already describes the single parameter 'territory' with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds the phrase 'by name or code,' which slightly reinforces the schema but does not provide substantial additional meaning. Following the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' with a clear resource ('one French overseas territory') and explicitly states the input type ('by name or code') and output ('public-data search hints'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like outremer_list_territories (listing all) and outremer_search_territory_datasets (searching datasets).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. While the purpose implies it is a preliminary resolution step for searching public data, it does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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