op3_geography

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it reports downloads and listeners side by side to avoid misleading small-market conclusions, qualifies regions and metros by country, notes metro is US-centric and mostly empty elsewhere, and implies folded results through the top parameter. This directly shapes how an agent interprets the output.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, granularity options in the second, and the country-qualification caveat earns its place. Every sentence adds information without repetition.

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 read-only analytics tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the key decision-relevant context: available geography levels, the unique-listeners pairing, metro's US limitation, and the country-qualification nuance. No critical gap remains for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the meaning of level and top through examples and caveats, but does not need to add further parameter detail.

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 states exactly what the tool does: reports downloads and unique listeners by geographic area, selectable at five granularity levels. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling analytics tools by focusing on geography rather than episodes, devices, or trends.

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 gives clear context on when the tool is appropriate: any geographic breakdown of a show's audience, with 'country is the usual answer' as practical guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the geographic focus and level guidance are strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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