explore_place

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and adds valuable behavioral context, such as the output being a Mermaid network diagram that must be included in responses. No contradictions. Minor deduction for not specifying response structure beyond the diagram note.

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-organized with clear sections: general purpose, usage guidance, differentiation from sibling, and output format. Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids quick comprehension.

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's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from similar tools. No gaps for effective agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'place,' and the description provides example values (Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Egypt) but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs: 'Returns the complete biblical history of a place.' It distinctly differentiates itself from the sibling tool 'lookup_name' by highlighting the depth of information (full history vs basic info).

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 this tool, with concrete examples like 'Tell me about Jerusalem.' It also contrasts with 'lookup_name,' explaining when the simpler tool is more appropriate, offering clear decision criteria.

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