get_admin_areas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource, but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return format details. It is a simple getter, but the lack of any behavioral context beyond the action is a gap.

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 wasted words. It efficiently lists the resources and the scope, making it easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description lists the expected output types, which provides some completeness. However, it does not mention whether all areas are always returned, or any error conditions. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail on the result structure would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a basic getter.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It only says 'for an address' which implies addressId is an address identifier, but it does not specify its format, required type beyond a string, or any constraints. This adds minimal meaning over the schema's bare property 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resources: municipality, region, parish, court, and police districts for an address. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_buildings or get_parcel, which target different data types.

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 when to use it (when you need administrative areas for an address), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the distinction clear.

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