admin_divisions_near_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic functionality without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), or what happens with invalid inputs. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose with zero waste. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with 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?

For a complex tool with 17 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return format, result ordering, error conditions, or how the various filters interact. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.

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 17 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'optional criteria' - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors, or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('administrative divisions near the given location') with optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'admin_division_details' (single division) and 'admin_divisions' (general list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'admin_divisions_near_division' (similar but uses division vs location).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'admin_divisions_near_division' (near division vs location) or 'places_near_location' (places vs administrative divisions). The description mentions optional filtering but provides no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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