get_live_geo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'live geographic distribution of current users,' but does not explain what 'current' means (e.g., time window), whether special permissions are needed, data latency, or what the response contains. This lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about operational 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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key concept. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with no output schema, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must explain both the operation and the return value. The description only states the general concept, leaving out crucial details like response format, the definition of 'current users,' and how the geographic data is structured. This is inadequate for a tool that returns a dynamic distribution.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameters; it mentions 'for an app' but the schema already explains appId and buildMode. No additional semantic insight is provided, making the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the resource: live geographic distribution of current users for an app. It distinguishes from siblings like get_top_countries and get_live_sessions by emphasizing 'live' and 'current users,' but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' making it slightly less direct than a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'live' qualifier implies real-time use, but there are no explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools like get_top_countries for historical data. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual usage direction.

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