where_was

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses behavior for disputed territories (returns all claimants with status='disputed') and explains the two modes. However, it does not specify return format, error handling, or performance considerations.

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 somewhat lengthy, especially due to the Italian text, but it is structured with clear sections (version, purpose, modes, examples). Every sentence adds useful context, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: use cases, two modes, handling of disputed territories. Missing details like return format and limitations, but overall sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic behavior.

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%, so parameters are already well-defined. The description adds value by explaining the distinction between 'year' and 'include_history' modes, and provides examples of year values (e.g., -300 for 300 BC). This goes beyond the schema's formal descriptions.

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 defines the tool as a reverse-geocoding temporal tool that returns historical entities controlling a given point in a given year. It provides specific examples of use cases (genealogy, diaspora) and differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on historical boundary querying.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool with example queries like 'who ruled Istanbul in 1500?' and contrasts the two modes (year-specific vs include_history). However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool or compare it directly with alternative sibling tools.

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