compare_geographies

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavior: strict_year fallback logic, missing codes reporting, year handling, and limits (max 20 geo_unit_codes). No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with sections and bullet points for return values. The initial summary is clear. However, the description is somewhat lengthy; some details (e.g., exact year handling in two cases) could be streamlined slightly, but still effective.

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?

Given 4 params, no annotations, but output schema exists (described in detail in text), the description explains the output dictionary structure, covers year options, missing codes, and limits. It is complete for a comparison tool with no obvious 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter: indicator_code with example, geo_unit_codes with type and limit, year optional behavior, strict_year default. Adds context beyond schema (e.g., max list size, code source).

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 compares a UNESCO UIS indicator across a specific list of countries/regions, using the verb 'compare' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_country_ranking (which likely ranks all countries) and search_geo_units (for finding codes).

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'directly compare a set of countries or regions you already know the codes for'. It provides prerequisites (codes known, use search_geo_units), and explains year/strict_year options to guide selection. Clear context without needing to state when not to use.

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