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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the useful fact that matching spans all four levels and alternate names, but says nothing about match semantics (prefix vs substring), result ordering, or pagination behavior on large result sets.

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 sentence with the scope front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause (four levels, the level names, name-or-alternate-name) conveys information an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 simple search tool with no output schema the definition is serviceable, and the annotations cover safety. But with 67% of parameters undocumented in the schema and no output schema, the description should at least explain pagination and the shape of a hit (level, id, name) to let an agent chain into wilayah_get_* correctly.

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% -- only `q` is documented, while `page` and `per_page` carry no descriptions beyond their defaults and the 100 maximum. The description does not compensate: it never mentions pagination, default page size, or the 2-character minimum, so an agent learns nothing about two of three parameters from the prose.

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 (search) and resource scope (administrative regions at all 4 levels: provinces, regencies, districts, villages), plus the matching fields (name or alternate name). It cleanly distinguishes itself from the wilayah_list_* and wilayah_get_* siblings, which enumerate or fetch by ID rather than search.

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 description implies the right usage context (you have a name fragment and don't know the parent hierarchy), but never says so explicitly. It offers no routing to alternatives such as wilayah_list_kabupaten for browsing by parent, nor any note about when a search is preferable to a direct get.

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