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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the hierarchy of location types returned and the downstream purpose of the adm4 code, but says nothing about match behavior (partial/prefix?), empty-result handling, or pagination beyond what the schema implies.

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 with the action, the resource, the scope and the downstream purpose front-loaded. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 correctly spends its words on what the caller gets back (an adm4 code) and what levels are searchable. Only pagination behavior and disambiguation from the wilayah_search family are missing for a search tool of this complexity.

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 0% for 3 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies only that the query is a location *name* (as opposed to a code), and leaves page and per_page entirely undocumented in both schema and prose, so an agent gets no guidance on paging through large result sets.

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 and resource ("Search Indonesian locations") plus the administrative levels searched (villages/districts/regencies/provinces) and the concrete output goal (an adm4 code). It implicitly separates itself from wilayah_* lookups by tying results to cuaca_forecast, but never names those sibling tools, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 description gives a clear purpose-driven context: use this when you need an adm4 code to pass to cuaca_forecast. It does not say when NOT to use it, nor does it address the obvious overlap with wilayah_search, which also searches Indonesian locations — an agent could easily pick the wrong sibling.

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