admin_division_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what details are returned but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but doesn't address behavioral aspects or usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more detail about return format, errors, or operational constraints would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format expectations for divisionId or clarify what 'asciiMode' does). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('administrative division'), and specifies the types of details returned (location coordinates, population, elevation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'place_details' or 'admin_divisions', which might also provide administrative division information.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'place_details', 'admin_divisions'), there's no indication of whether this tool is for detailed single-division lookup, how it differs from broader listing tools, or any prerequisites for use.

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