resolve_region_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'fuzzy-match', which hints at tolerant matching, but does not explain what happens on no match, multiple matches, or ambiguous names, nor does it describe the exact output structure or return value. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with concrete examples. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains zero filler, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema. The description conveys the input format and shows example outputs, but does not explicitly state the return type or behavior on failure (e.g., what if no region matches?). Given the low complexity, it is minimally adequate but lacks a few important details.

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 the placeName parameter already documented clearly with examples. The tool description adds the concept of fuzzy matching but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's existing explanation. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: fuzzy-matching a place name to an eBird region code, with concrete examples (e.g., 'Quintana Roo' → MX-ROO). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_hotspot, which resolves to a different entity type.

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 examples imply the use case (converting a place name to a region code for eBird queries), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_hotspot, or any preconditions/edge cases. Usage is inferred rather than directly guided.

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