query_by_place

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

Discloses key behaviors: uses multi-LLM consensus ('auto_approved'), returns a candidate list for disambiguation, does not auto-select, and avoids directional terms. With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of transparency.

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 focused paragraph. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, followed by essential details and constraints. No extraneous wording.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all important aspects: purpose, input format, disambiguation behavior, exclusion criteria, and success logic. It leaves no significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the 'place' parameter is resolved (disambiguation, accepted formats), which goes beyond the schema's single-line description.

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 states the tool's purpose: using modern place names to lookup ancient stories and sources. It specifies the hierarchical levels supported (province/city/county) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_person or query_by_quality by focusing on place-based queries.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (modern place name lookup), with examples ('西安', '陕西西安'). Clearly states what it does not do: it won't single-select ambiguous results and excludes directional terms like '江东'.

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