run_tracxn_geographies

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the fixed credit cost ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the data returned, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for an invalid URL/token.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and its scope are front-loaded, and the cost note is short and additive. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers what is fetched and what it costs. The only gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not describe the shape or pagination of the returned landscape data.

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 single geography parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the mild clarification that the input may be either a URL or an id token, which the schema example already shows. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Get one country startup landscape from Tracxn', and enumerates the payload (totals, top companies/investors, funding rounds, acquisitions, IPOs, news). This naturally separates it from the company-, investor-, and sector-level Tracxn siblings, but it never names an alternative to confirm the boundary.

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?

Gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not point to run_tracxn_companies, run_tracxn_investors, or run_tracxn_sectors as the alternatives for narrower scopes. With 200+ siblings, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer everything.

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