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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the exact metadata fields returned, listing download URL types, and noting the default product's CC-BY license—details beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, ISO3 explanation, ADM level explanation, and product/license note. It is dense but not verbose, with clear front-loading of the core function.

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?

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly communicates the return payload (unit count, year, source, license, download URLs), fully explains all three parameters, and states defaults and licensing. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does and returns, leaving minimal ambiguity.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete ISO3 examples, explaining ADM levels in a natural hierarchy, and clarifying the default product and license, enriching what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get administrative boundary metadata for a country from geoBoundaries'. It clarifies the return type (metadata with download URLs), distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_geometry which likely fetches geometry itself.

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 when to use the tool (when you need boundary metadata) and explains parameter semantics, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. With get_geometry as a close sibling, a direct comparison would strengthen this dimension.

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