os_apps_render_geography_selector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that this is a UI widget rather than a data query tool, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as whether the widget requires application context or how it behaves when no parameters are provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a UI widget, although the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter and usage detail.

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 a 10-parameter schema with zero descriptions and no enum constraints, this minimal description is not sufficient for an agent to select parameters confidently. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the parameter semantics and usage context remain too underspecified.

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 description mentions no parameters. With 10 optional parameters including level, focusName, searchTerm, multiSelect, and initialZoom, the agent receives no semantic information to guide correct invocation.

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 action ('Open') and resource ('MCP-Apps geography selector widget'), making the tool's core purpose understandable. It also broadly distinguishes this widget from sibling render tools like the route planner or statistics dashboard, though it does not explain what the geography selector actually does.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as os_apps_render_boundary_explorer or os_apps_render_feature_inspector. The description neither names conditions for use nor mentions any exclusions or preferred alternatives.

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