admin_boundaries

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the hierarchy order (largest to smallest) and output format, but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with invalid coordinates. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 structured as a clear docstring with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is efficient without unnecessary verbosity, though the docstring format adds slight repetition. Overall, it is appropriately sized and well-organized.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It explains the return value conceptually (administrative boundaries from largest to smallest) but does not detail the exact JSON structure or field names. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent expecting a precise format.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by specifying latitude range (-90 to 90), longitude range (-180 to 180), and the options for output_mode (json or text) with default. This provides context beyond the schema's type declarations, though ranges and defaults could be more precise.

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 obtains administrative boundary hierarchy for a location, specifying it returns hierarchy from country to neighbourhood. This distinguishes it from siblings like reverse_geocode or geocode, which provide place names or coordinates rather than a full boundary hierarchy.

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 for getting admin boundaries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reverse_geocode or nearby_places. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent without guidance on context-specific selection.

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