maritime_list_locations

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses important behaviors: returns a list with coordinates and region classifications, uses case-insensitive substring match for query, supports JSON or text output. It also notes the default max_results. While it doesn't detail auth or performance, it sufficiently describes the core behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, Args, Returns, Tips) and each sentence adds value. It is slightly longer but not wasteful, as the tips provide actionable guidance. Could be slightly more concise by integrating some tips into the main description.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, all parameters with options, return format, and usage strategies. The tips section further enhances completeness by showing the agent how to effectively use the tool in context with sibling tools.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with a detailed 'Args' section, listing each parameter, its purpose, and options (e.g., region values, location_type options, defaults). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 searches or browses a VOC historical gazetteer, returns locations with coordinates and region classifications. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'maritime_lookup_location', which is for full details on a specific place, by focusing on listing/browsing with filters.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including tips for LLMs such as calling without filters to see all locations, using region and location_type filters, and following up with maritime_lookup_location. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other siblings beyond the one mentioned.

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