maritime_lookup_location

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 automatic handling of historical spellings, approximate coordinates, and output formats. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, which would push it to 5.

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 (Args, Returns, Tips). It is concise, every sentence adds value, and the tips section is particularly useful without being verbose. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (JSON or text with coordinates, region, historical notes). It also contextualizes integration with other tools. For a lookup tool with two parameters, this is complete and falls within expected complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter with concrete examples ('Batavia', 'Texel') and notes historical Dutch support. The 'output_mode' parameter is described with default and two values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it looks up historical place names in the VOC gazetteer, returning coordinates, region, and historical context. It uses specific verbs and resources, and differentiates from sibling tools like maritime_list_locations and maritime_assess_position via the tips section.

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 the tool: after reading a voyage's 'particulars' field for geocoding. It also suggests alternatives (maritime_list_locations to browse places, maritime_assess_position for position accuracy evaluation), giving clear context and exclusions.

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