Get Map Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well: it explains the exact return shape (region names plus a simplified GeoJSON URL usable by Leaflet/D3/Mapbox) and warns about missing ADM2 coverage. It omits auth/rate-limit details and any note on data freshness, so it is not a full 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return shape and then level semantics. Slightly overlong with the parenthetical map-library list and multiple regional examples, but every sentence adds usable 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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the agent has everything needed: what the call returns, what each level means, and the edge case where ADM2 is unavailable. No critical calling 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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the 'level' parameter is fully explained with accepted values and example regions, and a default of ADM1 exists in the schema. The 'country' parameter is left implicit, which is the only gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (get administrative boundary data for a country) and states the intended use (drawing an interactive map) plus what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the siblings get_country_profile or get_region_details, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance via the level codes ('ADM0' for country outline, 'ADM1' for states/provinces, 'ADM2' for counties) with real examples, and flags a limitation ('Not every country has ADM2 data'). No explicit routing away from sibling tools is provided, which keeps it at 4.

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