行政区划代码查询

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does valuable work by disclosing dataset scope (31 provincial regions, HK/Macau/Taiwan excluded, three levels) and data provenance, which tells the agent when a lookup will legitimately return nothing. However, it never says whether name matching is exact or substring, whether `limit` applies to name queries, or how results are ordered/truncated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the query mechanism and formats, followed by coverage and provenance. Every clause is informative; the source attribution is slightly beyond minimal need but earns its place by explaining data authority and staleness.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers input format and data scope but says nothing about the return shape — whether a query yields the code/name pair, the full parent hierarchy, or just a level. Combined with the unexplained `limit`, an agent knows what to send but not confidently what it gets back.

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 coverage is 50%: `query` is documented in the schema, but the description adds real value by spelling out the accepted code formats (2/4/6 digits, 12-digit prefix rule). The `limit` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description — its role (result capping, max 100) and which query type it affects are left to inference, so the description only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb (查询) and resource (省/市/县行政区划) plus the accepted query forms (2/4/6-digit codes, 12-digit truncated to 6, or names). No sibling could be confused with this — pinyin, lunar conversion and the validator tools are all different domains — so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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 gives clear context for how to invoke it: pass either a code (with explicit digit-length rules) or a name. It never states exclusions or prerequisites beyond the coverage note, and gives no guidance on choosing between code and name input, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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