admin_divisions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals one important behavioral trait: the default population threshold of 1000 when no criteria are set. However, it doesn't address other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 17 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with just two sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second provides important default behavior information. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's a query/filtering tool upfront.

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 complexity (17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. While it explains the default population threshold, it doesn't address the tool's overall behavior, return format, error conditions, or how the numerous filtering parameters interact. For a rich query tool with many options, the description should provide more context about what 'administrative divisions' encompasses and typical use cases.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it only mentions the population threshold of 1000 when no criteria are set, which relates to minPopulation parameter behavior. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have better explained how parameters interact.

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: 'Find administrative divisions, filtering by optional criteria.' This specifies both the verb ('find') and resource ('administrative divisions'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'admin_division_details' or 'admin_divisions_near_location', which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage guidance by explaining what happens 'If no criteria are set' (returns all known divisions with population ≥1000), which helps understand default behavior. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'admin_divisions_near_location' or 'admin_division_details', leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names alone.

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