search_geo_units

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the interactive behavior when multiple grouping systems match, which is a key trait. It also implies a read-only nature. No contradictions; the description is honest about the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by context and detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter usage, interactive behavior, and return format (dictionary with geo_units, count, hint). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: for 'query' it explains accepted inputs (name or ISO3 code with examples), for 'type_filter' it clarifies the two valid values (NATIONAL/REGIONAL), and for 'region_group' it explains restriction to a grouping system with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: searching for UNESCO UIS geographic units by name or code. It specifies the verb 'search', the resource 'geo units', and the scope (countries and regions). It also mentions its role in supporting get_latest_value, making it distinct from sibling tools like search_indicators or get_country_ranking.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this to find the geo unit code needed for get_latest_value' and explains how it handles multiple grouping systems by eliciting a user choice. It provides examples of acceptable inputs. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the context is clear and practical.

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