List Geographies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses the data provenance, the valid level values, and the parent-filtering behavior including specific hierarchy constraints. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or pagination, but the simple lookup nature and presence of an output schema reduce the need.

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 tightly packed sentences deliver the purpose, source, valid values, and parent-child rules with no filler. The hierarchy detail is front-loaded and every clause adds operational value.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: required level, optional parent, valid combinations, and data source. No essential call-decision information is missing.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates. It enumerates the allowed `level` values and explains exactly how `parent` behaves for each level, including which parent types are valid for `dun`. This is far more useful than the bare schema's string/null types.

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 states a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource: state/district/parliament/state assembly codes and hierarchy. It names the exact domain and data source, making it unmistakably distinct from the series/query siblings.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: `level` must be one of state/district/parlimen/dun, and `parent` filters to children with explicit parent-child rules. It does not compare against sibling tools, but the domain is well separated and no exclusion criteria are needed.

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