Analyze Overture place co-location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains deterministic spatial evidence, the equirectangular grid and 199 permutations, raw cosine semantic evidence, the lack of a calibrated percentile, and the embedding-failure edge case preserving spatial evidence with semanticDistance.value=null. It also states clearly that the tool never makes a publish decision.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, methodology, sibling distinction, edge-case behavior, and safety boundary. The description is dense but not bloated, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how it is computed, the key edge case, the relationship to the publishable sibling, and the tool's non-decision authority. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter ambiguity is not an issue and the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that the tool is intentionally narrow (one pair, one county) rather than a general configurable API.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('bounded diagnostic occupied-grid-cell evidence'), and an exact scope ('one exact unordered taxonomy_primary pair in one published county'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling discoverPlaceColocationCandidates by explicitly stating it is not the publishable source.

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 clearly implies when this tool is appropriate: for diagnostic, bounded, non-publishable evidence. It explicitly names discoverPlaceColocationCandidates as the publishable Class H source, which provides a strong routing signal, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this when, use that when' formulation.

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