list_provinces

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

Despite having no annotations, the description surfaces critical implicit behaviors: the default level is 3 when omitted, province code ranges differ by level (1–63 vs. starting at 2001), and level=2 is read-only for write endpoints. These details go far beyond what the schema alone conveys and are essential for correct invocation.

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 dense but every sentence contributes. The primary action is stated succinctly, followed by clearly labeled sections (WORKFLOW, NOTE) that organize the alternative schema usages. No fluff or repetition of schema 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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description carries the full explanatory burden. It covers the default behavior, both possible level values, and the exact workflows for downstream calls, which is comprehensive. However, it does not explicitly describe the response structure (e.g., fields returned), which would have been helpful but is not strictly necessary given 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 documents the 'level' parameter fully with a 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by explaining the default value, the tier counts (3-tier vs. 2-tier), and the code format differences. This exceeds the baseline by providing crucial operational nuance.

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 opens with a clear verb-object statement: 'List Vietnamese provinces.' It then differentiates the tool from its siblings by explaining the two administrative levels (level=2 and level=3) and their implications for the result set, which is unique to this tool in the context of the sibling 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 description explicitly states when to use each level, provides step-by-step workflows for new schema (level=2) and old schema (level=3), and gives the important exclusion: 'Sapo write endpoints ... accept ONLY level=3 codes; level=2 is read-only as of 2026-05.' This clearly guides tool selection and usage.

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