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.