find_geographies_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that it geocodes and returns geographies, omitting read-only nature, rate limits, accuracy, error handling, or output format. For a geocoding tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the purpose and return content; the second specifies input requirements. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose and input requirements adequately, but with no output schema and no annotations, it should describe return values and behavioral traits more fully. Missing when-to-use versus siblings and details about the returned geographies.

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 meaningfully adds required combinations (street + zip OR street + city + state; or street + urb + municipio) beyond the schema, which only marks 'street' as required. This clarifies how to supply parameters.

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 ('Geocode') and resource ('Puerto Rico address') and notes it returns census geographies, distinguishing it from geocode_pr_address. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling find_geographies_oneline, find_geographies_parsed, or find_geographies_coordinates.

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?

Provides minimum input combinations for submission, which is helpful, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling find_geographies_* tools or geocode_pr_address. No exclusions or alternative selection criteria are given.

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