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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for unknown ids, no latency or caching hints, no statement of what the single record contains.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key noun up front, so it is easy to parse. The brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being efficient density.

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-record lookup with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without id format, return shape, or failure semantics. Given the eighteen sibling wilayah_* tools, this is too thin to route reliably.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter meaning. It only says 'by its id', which restates the parameter name rather than specifying the expected id format (numeric code vs. slug, e.g. district code) or where to find it.

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 states a verb and resource ('Get a single district') and clarifies scope to one record, which separates it from wilayah_list_kecamatan. However, it never differentiates among the many other wilayah_* getters (get_kabupaten, get_kelurahan, get_provinsi) or indicates the hierarchy level relationship.

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 guidance: nothing says the id must first be obtained via wilayah_list_kecamatan or wilayah_search, and no exclusions are given. An agent reading only this text does not know how to source a valid id.

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