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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations, namely that results carry a boundary URL pointing to polygon files (important given there is no output schema), but it says nothing about pagination behavior or what metadata fields appear in each record.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the payload hint second. Brevity is close to under-specification rather than verbosity, so it is efficient but leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 three-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain the level filter and pagination defaults. It covers only the boundary-URL aspect, so an agent cannot tell what 'level' changes or how results are paged without inspecting the raw schema.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not. The 'level' enum (province/regency/district/village) is never explained or tied to the returned data, and neither 'page' nor 'per_page' is mentioned, leaving pagination semantics entirely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List administrative boundary metadata'), which is clearly distinct from search or get-style siblings. It also hints at the metadata-vs-polygon split with 'Polygon files are returned by the boundary URL', though it never names wilayah_get_boundary as the tool that actually fetches the polygon.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'for map clients' and the pointer to the boundary URL, which suggests a two-step workflow: list metadata, then fetch the polygon. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., wilayah_get_boundary) despite several closely related wilayah siblings.

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