lookup_location_from_digipin

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 a bold yet vague 'REVOLUTIONARY' and the core function. It does not disclose read-only nature, error behaviors for invalid DigiPins, rate limits, or any additional side effects. The lack of detail leaves significant uncertainty about what happens on wrong input or what the response format is.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it begins with '🚀 REVOLUTIONARY:' - a marketing embellishment that adds no functional value and detracts from professionalism. The core information is present, but the fluff wastes space and is not front-loaded as useful 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent will receive. 'Administrative boundaries' is vague - it could mean names, codes, geometries, or something else. The description also omits error handling, pagination, or any constraints. For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke and process the result.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description of the expected format ('DigiPin code (format: XXX-XXX-XXXX)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already adequately documents the input.

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's function: 'Get administrative boundaries from a DigiPin code.' This is a specific verb ('get') + resource ('administrative boundaries') + source ('DigiPin code'), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like lookup_location_from_coordinates and validate_digipin. The name and schema confirm the input, and the description makes the output intent clear.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or prefered scenarios. For example, it does not say 'use this when you have a DigiPin and need boundary data, otherwise use lookup_location_from_coordinates.' This leaves the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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