analyze_geographic_distribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While it states the output (countries and institutions), it does not explain whether results are aggregated, limited by data source, or if there are restrictions on query scope. Key behavioral details like caching, pagination, or API limits are missing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient but could be slightly more concise by merging the second sentence. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return value structure (e.g., list of countries with counts). It only vaguely mentions 'shows which countries and institutions are most active'. With 5 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks completeness for an analysis tool.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 function ('analyze the geographical distribution of research activity') and specifies what it shows ('which countries and institutions are most active'). This effectively identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze_topic_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?

No explicit guidelines on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'analyze_topic_trends'). The description implies usage for geographical analysis but lacks context about when it is appropriate or not, and does not mention prerequisites or limitations.

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