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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope context beyond that: the exact set of supported countries (GT, SV, HN, NI, CR, PA, BZ, DO) and the shape of what is returned. It omits any auth or rate-limit context, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 defines the input-to-output transformation with illustrative examples, followed by one short sentence scoping coverage. No filler and no repetition of structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden, naming the code, hierarchy levels, centre coordinates and area. What is missing is behavior around ambiguity or when both text and lat/lon are supplied, and no mention of the 'level' restriction, leaving a modest gap for a five-parameter 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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies that 'text' accepts people's informal spellings and that lat/lon is an alternative input path, which the schema never says. But it never mentions the 'level' parameter or its enum, nor the country filter, leaning on the schema for those.

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 precise transformation: a colloquial place name or lat/lon becomes an official code plus its hierarchy (country, department, municipality) with centre coordinates and area. This is far more specific than a bare verb+resource. It implies a distinction from search_places/list_places by describing a single canonical resolution, but it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 makes clear the two accepted input modes (free-form names like "Xela"/"zona 10", or lat/lon) and the supported country set, which implies usage. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance versus search_places, list_places, or enrich_place, and no indication of what to do if the answer is ambiguous.

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