Get Region Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the data source (Wikidata), the returned fields, the join key, and a coverage caveat. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or latency, but for a read-only lookup the disclosure is substantial.

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?

Three tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, then sibling differentiation, then return contents and coverage caveat. No sentence is filler and each adds distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description covers them anyway plus the join semantics and coverage limits. The only material omission is the format of the 'country' input.

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% and the single 'country' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description implies it identifies a country whose ADM1 regions are fetched, but never states the expected format (ISO code vs. name vs. Wikidata ID) — a real gap given that the join key discussion shows naming conventions matter.

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+resource (get statistics for ADM1 regions) and enumerates exactly what is returned: population, area, capital, ISO 3166-2 code, names, coordinates, and reference links. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling get_map_data, which supplies geometry but no statistics.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: use this for statistics, use get_map_data for geometry, and join them on 'match_key' with an explanation of why that field exists (normalising naming conventions). It also states coverage limits (best for ADM1; many countries lack sub-ADM1 ISO codes).

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