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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does notable work: it discloses the pay-per-call model ($0.005, x402, USDC on Base), points to lokalapi_info for the payment flow, and states that prefixed inputs ('Kab.', 'Kota', 'Kec.') are normalized. It does not cover rate limits, empty-match behavior, or error modes, which keeps 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 sentences, zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded, the prefix-handling caveat follows, and the cost/payment pointer is appended where it belongs.

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, and the description compensates by stating what comes back (official code plus full hierarchy). It also covers the payment dimension. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of result-limit behavior or what happens on no matches.

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 75%, so the schema already documents q, limit, and parent. The description adds genuine meaning beyond it by confirming that prefixed names are accepted and that results are name-driven, which the schema's plain q description does not state. It says nothing extra about level or parent, so not a 5.

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 names a specific verb (Search), a precise resource (official Indonesian administrative regions), the lookup axis (by name), and the payoff (Kemendagri 2025 code plus full hierarchy). 'By name' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling wilayah_get, which would take a code, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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: search when you have a region name and need its official code or hierarchy, and consult lokalapi_info for payment details. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, and the alternative wilayah_get is never named, so the agent must infer the routing rule.

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