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 is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds essentially no behavior beyond that – it does not say the result is paginated, what happens with an unknown kabupaten_id, or whether an unfiltered call returns every district in Indonesia (which could be a very large result).

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the filter option is placed correctly after the core action. It is efficient but so terse that useful details were omitted rather than concisely compressed.

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?

Placeholder justification.

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 only 33%: kabupaten_id is documented in the schema itself, while page and per_page have no descriptions at all. The description only restates the one already-documented parameter and says nothing about paging semantics, defaults, or the per_page maximum of 100, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("List districts") and names the filterable entity, so the operation is immediately understood. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as wilayah_get_kecamatan (single district) or wilayah_list_kelurahan (children of a district), which an agent must infer from the tool names alone.

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 phrase "optionally filtered by regency id" hints at one usage pattern but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no routing to wilayah_get_kecamatan for a single district, no mention of how to drill down to kelurahan, and no mention of pagination expectations.

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