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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered; the description adds nothing beyond that, such as what happens when the id is unknown or what fields a village record contains. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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 the verb and lookup key front-loaded and no filler wording; it is efficient, though that efficiency is bought by under-specification rather than by tight editing.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values, and the annotations cover behavior. The missing piece is the id format/discovery path, which matters for correct invocation.

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 the single parameter: the schema says only type 'string'. The description's 'by its id' does not clarify the id format (e.g. a BPS/kode wilayah like '32.73.01.1001' versus a numeric internal id) or whether it must come from a sibling list tool, leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single village') and its lookup key ('by its id'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list/search tools wilayah_list_kelurahan and wilayah_search without naming them explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this rather than wilayah_list_kelurahan (enumerate villages under a parent) or wilayah_search (find one by name). The word 'single' hints at a direct lookup, but no alternative or precondition (e.g. 'requires an id obtained from wilayah_list_kelurahan') is given.

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