find_place

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a benign read lookup, but never states whether matching is exact, fuzzy, or spelling-tolerant, whether the historical-parish note changes result shape, or how results are ordered/limited. The note that merged historical parishes are handled is genuinely useful behavioral context, keeping this above a 2.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the purpose front-loaded and a compact parenthetical example that earns its place by explaining the historical-parish behavior. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description correctly conveys the domain and the historical-merger nuance. What is missing for a name-resolution tool is the matching semantics (fuzzy vs. exact) and how 'limit' constrains results.

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% for both parameters, and the description says nothing about 'name' (exact vs. partial, alternative spellings, case sensitivity) or 'limit' (default 10, max results). With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('look up') plus the resource ('a place ... in Riksarkivet's topographic register') and the exact result ('which parish/province it belongs to'). The scope is clear enough to separate it from siblings like search_records or get_register_record, though it never names those alternatives.

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 implies the use case (resolving a place name to its parish/province) but gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to any sibling for related needs. The historical-parish example hints at the intended use but is not a routing rule.

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