list_simdasi_regencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description clarifies the input is a 7-digit province code, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple listing operation but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action and output, and the second sentence provides a crucial usage pointer; every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what it lists, for which geographical level, and how to obtain the parent code. It does not describe the return structure, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail; an agent can reasonably infer the output from the tool's purpose.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'parent' as a '7-digit MFD code of the parent province' (100% coverage). The description adds value by referencing list_simdasi_provinces as the source for this code, teaching the agent the provenance of the input value, which goes beyond the schema's static definition.

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 explicitly states the action ('List') and the target resource ('7-digit MFD codes for regencies/cities in a province'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_simdasi_provinces and list_simdasi_districts by specifying the administrative level. The phrase 'used in SIMDASI' adds domain context.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite instruction: 'Use list_simdasi_provinces to get the parent MFD code,' which guides the agent on how to obtain the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used over alternatives like list_simdasi_districts, so it lacks a full exclusion set.

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