events_for_map

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: returns only events with coordinates, lightweight payload (10 fields), auto-expanding time window based on epoch, and no descriptions/sources. Without annotations, this carries full burden and meets it fully.

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 efficient, with each sentence adding specific information. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise. Still, it earns a high score for clarity and structure.

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 payload (10 fields per event) and what is omitted. It covers all necessary contextual details for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining auto-expansion logic for the window parameter and why events without coordinates are excluded, providing context beyond the 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 retrieves geolocalized historical events optimized for map display, with specifics like lightweight payload (10 fields per event) and auto-expanding window. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on map visualization and coordinate-only events.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool: when user asks about events near a place in a year or to populate a map. Also states what it doesn't include (descriptions/sources) and directs to get_event for details, offering clear guidance on alternatives.

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