search_boundaries

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes input parameters and fails to mention aspects like partial matching, case sensitivity, error behavior, or pagination, leaving the agent with limited understanding of how the tool behaves.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement and an organized Args section. Every sentence is relevant, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 presence of an output schema, return value explanation is not needed. However, the description lacks behavioral details and usage context, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds crucial semantics: it defines 'name' as a search term and lists allowed values for 'level' ('gemeente', 'wijk', etc.). This compensates for the schema gap and provides meaningful guidance.

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 searches for geographic boundaries by name, specifying types like municipality, district, neighbourhood, or postal code. It is specific about the resource and verb, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_features, though the focus on name search is distinct.

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 implies usage when a boundary name is known, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative advice.

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