places_for_passage

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by disclosing the honesty policy: 'identified' and 'disputed' come with coordinates, while 'unknown', 'symbolic', and 'multiple' state plainly that no single pin exists — never a guessed location. It also states that passages with no places explicitly say so, adding behavioral transparency not present in the structured annotations.

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 moderately sized but front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary detail about confidence statuses and the no-places case. It could be tightened slightly, but it is not bloated and every clause contributes meaningful information.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description still covers the output line format (name, type, honesty status), the handling of disputed vs. unknown locations, and the edge case of no places. This is comprehensive for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema already provides full coverage of the single parameter 'reference' with a clear description and examples. The tool description echoes the same examples and adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema specifies. Thus the baseline of 3 is 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 opens with the specific action 'List the places a passage names' and clarifies the confidence-based coordinate handling. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on place identification for a passage, with examples like 'Acts 17' and 'Genesis 4:16', making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'after reading a passage when the question is where did this happen?' This provides clear context and a usage scenario. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the 'when-not-to-use' guidance that would merit a 5.

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