List Homeric Atlas places

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the meaning of 'every place,' the definition of each identification class, and the crucial caveat that confidence is an editorial 0-12 judgement, not a probability. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states scope and output, the second gives usage guidance, and the third and fourth define the domain-specific vocabulary (classes and confidence rubric) that the agent needs to interpret results. It is detailed but not bloated, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter schema, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: scope, field meanings, classification semantics, confidence interpretation, and routing to the detail-level sibling. Nothing critical is missing.

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% for the single optional `locale` parameter, which already documents its enum values, default, and purpose. The description does not discuss the locale parameter, but because the schema fully covers it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('every place in the Homeric Atlas'), and the exact fields returned (identification class, confidence score, competing identifications). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling `get_homeric_place`, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 second sentence gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use this to browse the atlas; use `get_homeric_place` once you have a slug.' This clearly tells the agent when to choose this tool over the closely related sibling and requires no inference.

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