admin_boundaries

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. It discloses that the tool returns hierarchy from largest to smallest, but lacks info on errors, rate limits, or idempotency. Safe behavior implied but not explicit.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Redundant 'Args' section but overall concise and clear.

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 no output schema, description adequately explains return value as admin hierarchy from largest to smallest. However, exact JSON structure or hierarchy levels not detailed, which could be helpful.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but description explains lat/lon as coordinates and output_mode as 'json' or 'text'. Adds context beyond schema types, though ranges are already in schema (min/max not shown here but typical).

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 returns administrative boundary hierarchy for a location, from country to neighbourhood. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reverse_geocode by focusing on hierarchy rather than address.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like geocode or reverse_geocode. Usage is implied from the description but no when-not-to or prerequisites.

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