resolve_geographies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the core transformation behavior, but it does not disclose handling of unrecognized inputs, normalization behavior, accepted code variants, or error behavior. The description is not misleading, but it leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, input, output standard, and provides useful examples in about fifteen words. Every element contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, which covers return shape. Still, the description lacks important context about accepted input code formats, behavior on invalid or mixed inputs, and whether names must be exact. These are clear gaps for an agent invoking the tool correctly.

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 provides only an array of strings with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by indicating the strings are 'country names or codes' and that the output is ISO alpha-3. However, it does not specify which code types are accepted (e.g., alpha-2, alpha-3, numeric) or case sensitivity, so the parameter semantics remain only partially clarified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and names the exact resource and output format: country names or codes to ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes, with concrete examples (GHA, KEN). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data-retrieval tools, none of which perform geographic resolution.

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 intended use case is implied: use when you need to convert country names or codes to ISO alpha-3 codes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of exclusions, and no alternatives are named. The description does not clarify which input code formats are accepted or what to do with ambiguous or invalid inputs.

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