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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does contribute the return format ('GeoJSON'), which annotations do not carry, but the phrase 'boundary metadata' muddies whether the payload is the geometry itself or descriptive fields about it.

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?

One sentence with the verb, resource, return format and access key all front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or schema in a wasteful way.

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?

For a single-parameter read with no output schema, the description should clarify what the GeoJSON contains (full polygon geometry vs. bbox/metadata) and roughly how large the response is, since boundary payloads are bulky. The 'metadata' versus 'GeoJSON' tension leaves the agent guessing about the return value in the one place the schema cannot help.

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 single 'code' parameter is documented with concrete examples (32.73, 32.73.01.1001), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description only restates 'dotted region code' without adding format rules, accepted depth, or error behavior for malformed codes, 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('GeoJSON boundary ... for an administrative region') and states the input form (dotted region code), which is enough to separate it from the list-style siblings. It stops short of distinguishing itself from wilayah_list_boundaries or the wilayah_get_provinsi/kabupaten/kecamatan/kelurahan family, which could plausibly be read as returning the same region.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. With siblings such as wilayah_list_boundaries (presumably enumerating which boundaries exist) and wilayah_get_kabupaten/kecamatan (presumably returning region records), the agent is left to infer which one yields the geometry.

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