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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the scope of the default listing ('the 38 provinces'), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, output shape, hierarchy depth, or how large a child listing might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the three selectable modes. No filler, no redundancy with the schema, nothing that could be cut.

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?

The description covers the three retrieval paths but leaves gaps for a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool: it does not confirm what a bare call returns, describe the returned hierarchy/fields, or state that the operation is a safe read. Adequate minimum viable coverage, but not complete.

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%: the schema already explains 'Return this one region', 'List the children of this code', and the enum plus the parent_code prerequisite for sub-provinsi levels. The description adds no format, pattern, or default detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource precisely (administrative regions) and enumerates the three retrieval modes: all 38 provinces, children of a parent code, or a single region by code. This is distinguishable from every sibling in the list, none of which deal with regions. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'get_wilayah' plus the enumerated modes make the purpose unambiguous.

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 three modes map implicitly onto parameter combinations (level vs. parent_code vs. code), giving the agent a usable sketch of when each result shape applies. However, it never states prerequisites (e.g., that anything below provinsi requires parent_code, which lives only in the schema), defaults for a no-argument call, or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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