check_jurisdiction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains the resolution algorithm, the stopping rule ('first level that yields any authority'), why that rule matters, and what happens at wider levels ('reported by id only'). It also discloses the default behavior of include_wider and its rationale, giving substantial behavioral context.

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, moving from purpose to algorithm to example to parameters. Every section earns its place, though the initial 'GREEN —' fragment is cryptic and slightly distracting without explanation. Overall it is efficiently structured with little waste.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description explains the input semantics, the algorithm, the stopping condition, and the nature of the returned evidence trail. It does not specify the exact response structure or edge cases such as unknown places or levels with no authorities, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: place_name is defined as 'name of the municipality, district or state', and include_wider is explained semantically ('also list the authorities of the wider levels') plus its default and why it defaults to false. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema titles.

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 the precise question 'Which authority covers a given place?' and then explains the resolution mechanism by walking the georegion and publicbody hierarchy. This clearly identifies a specific verb+resource behavior and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_authorities or get_authority by focusing on place-to-jurisdiction resolution rather than keyword search or direct lookup.

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 gives a clear use case: determining the responsible authority for a municipality, district, or state, with a concrete Rhineland-Palatinate example. It also explains when include_wider is inappropriate ('at country level that is thousands of bodies'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus search_authorities.

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