ukraine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication that this is a read-only operation, no auth requirements, no statement of what the catalog info contains or whether it is cached/static. For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations, this leaves the agent guessing.

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, front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place the agent can learn what this tool returns, and it says only 'information about the catalog'. No return shape, no distinction from sibling territory tools, no behavioral hints – inadequate for the agent to decide to call it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema's empty object; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no meaningful parameter context because none is needed.

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 names a real resource ('загальноукраїнський каталог територій' – the all-Ukrainian territory catalog), but there is no verb and 'Інформація про...' is close to restating the name get_catalog_info. It hints at the catalog-level resource, yet gives no clue what the info actually is or how it differs from siblings like get_hierarchy or list_territories.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative tools (get_hierarchy, get_territory, list_territories, search_territories). The agent is left to infer when catalog metadata is the right call versus any of the five siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that it retrieves a hierarchy; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies it), what the return structure looks like, whether the hierarchy is recursive, or any permission/rate-limit requirements.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter detail.

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 tool with one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent lacks enough context to know what 'code' to supply or what the returned hierarchy contains.

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?

The single parameter 'code' has 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'території' (territory), which faintly hints the code is a territory identifier, but it never explains the code's format, source, or relationship to the hierarchy. It does not compensate for the schema 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Отримати' / get) and a specific resource ('адміністративну ієрархію території' / administrative hierarchy of a territory). It clearly distinguishes itself from generic 'territory' tools by naming the hierarchy aspect, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_territory or list_territories.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over get_territory, list_territories, or search_territories, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read returning a URL, but says nothing about permission requirements, what happens for an unknown or non-territorial code, or whether the address is stable/cached.

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 resource and return type front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structure itself is sound.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description does convey the return value (an HTTPS address). However, with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented required parameter, it leaves the agent guessing about input format and error behavior.

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 required parameter 'code', so the description must compensate — and it does not. It never explains that 'code' is a territorial identifier, its expected format, or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_territories).

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 gives a specific verb+resource in Ukrainian: retrieve the HTTPS address of a territorial MCP. An agent knows exactly what is returned, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_territory or get_catalog_info, which also fetch territorial metadata.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_territory, get_hierarchy, or search_territories, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a territory code must already be known). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Отримати' implies a read, but the description says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown code, permissions, or what is returned.

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 resource and lookup key front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though minimalism here partly reflects missing content rather than 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits return shape, not-found behavior, and any code-format expectation that would let an agent call it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does add that the single parameter is a КАТОТТГ code (a Ukrainian territorial-classification identifier), which is more than the bare 'Code' in the schema. However it gives no format, validation, or example details.

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 (Отримати) and resource (територію) plus the lookup key (кодом КАТОТТГ), so the agent knows it is a by-code lookup. It does not distinguish itself from siblings list_territories or search_territories, which also return territories.

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 versus list_territories, get_hierarchy, or search_territories, nor any stated preconditions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the output is paginated. It does not disclose authentication requirements, what a filter match does when empty, the default page size behavior, or the shape of returned items.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity is achieved by omitting needed detail rather than by efficient expression.

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 six-parameter, zero-coverage schema with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient: an agent cannot determine filter semantics, pagination defaults, or return content before calling the tool.

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?

Six parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only generically alludes to 'filters and pagination'. It does not explain category, region_code, district_code, or community_code, nor how limit/offset interact, leaving the parameters essentially 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 states a clear verb+resource: a paginated, filterable list of territories. It is understandable on its own, but it offers no differentiation from siblings like search_territories or get_territory, so an agent cannot tell which listing tool to prefer.

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 tool versus search_territories or get_territory; the mention of 'filters' only implies that it can be narrowed. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: no note on partial vs exact matching, case sensitivity, transliteration rules, pagination via limit, or result ordering. The existence of an output schema covers return shape, but search behavior itself is undisclosed.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the search action and resource. It is efficient, though so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than maximal conciseness.

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?

The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, and the search semantics are partially covered. However, matching behavior and the limit parameter remain unexplained for a tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving notable gaps.

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 compensate. It does clarify that the query accepts Ukrainian or transliterated names, which is genuinely useful, but the limit parameter (default 20, presumably pagination) is never explained, leaving half the parameters 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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (territories of Ukraine) and specifies the matching key (Ukrainian or transliterated name). It is clearly distinct from list_territories or get_territory, though it never names those siblings 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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting this tool over list_territories or get_territory, and no mention of prerequisites or result limits. Usage must be inferred entirely from the word 'search'.

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