Admin hierarchy lookup

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses result ordering, the meaningful empty-chain case, and structured error behavior for upstream or dataset schema failures. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, method, output shape, ordering, empty-result meaning, and errors are each covered in a useful sentence. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotence, the description still supplies the important contextual details: hierarchy order, empty chain as a valid answer, and failure modes. An agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description's 'point' and 'point-in-polygon' wording clarifies that lat/lon are a geographic coordinate pair. However, it does not specify coordinate system, decimal-degree format, or valid ranges, so parameter meaning is only partially compensated.

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 the tool returns the admin hierarchy for a point from neighborhood up to country, and names the point-in-polygon method against Overture's divisions theme. This is specific enough to distinguish it from reverse_geocode, address_at, and other sibling lookup tools.

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 intended use case is explicit: given a lat/lon point, get the chain of containing administrative divisions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the scope is clear and edge-case semantics are explained.

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