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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral cost: $0.002 per call, paid via x402 in USDC on Base, with a pointer to lokalapi_info. It omits error behaviour for invalid/unknown codes and whether results for partial codes (e.g. province vs village) differ in shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose and return values are front-loaded, and the pricing/payment caveat follows in a compact clause. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must define the return payload, and it does ('name, type and full administrative hierarchy'). Combined with the cost/payment disclosure and the pointer to lokalapi_info, an agent has everything needed to call it and anticipate the billing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already gives the '34.71' example, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by showing a second, deeper code format ('34.04.12.2001') and the authoritative source/version (Kemendagri 2025), clarifying accepted code granularity.

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 specific verb ('Resolve'), resource ('official Indonesian region code'), and the exact output shape (name, type, full administrative hierarchy). The name/verb pairing distinguishes it from the search-style sibling wilayah_search, though it never explicitly names that alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: call this when you already hold a region code and need its name/hierarchy. However, it never states when to prefer this over wilayah_search (i.e. name-to-code lookup) or what to do if the code is unknown, and the only routing pointer is to lokalapi_info for payment details.

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