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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description goes beyond these by adding that no auth is required, identifying the data source (geoBoundaries, William & Mary geoLab), and specifying that the result includes local admin names and unit counts. It contradicts no 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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and return payload, then gives a precise usage guideline, then a brief data-source and auth note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a rich output schema, the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly: it specifies what to pass in spirit (country), what it returns, when to use it relative to a sibling, and the auth position. No critical guidance is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single country parameter thoroughly, including format, length, and the exclusion of ISO2 codes and country names. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the generic phrase 'for a given country,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check'), a clear resource (administrative levels for a country), and the scope (ADM0-ADM5 with local admin name and unit count). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling geoboundaries.boundary.detail by naming the preflight role, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool before geoboundaries.boundary.detail to avoid requesting a non-existent level. This gives a clear when-to-use rule and names the relevant alternative, leaving no ambiguity about how this tool fits into a workflow.

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