search_divisions

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

Discloses that geometry is omitted by default to save space, implying a performance consideration. But does not mention what happens with lat/lng/radius parameters, or if name is required. No annotations to supplement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a key usage tip. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (9 params, no output schema), description covers the main search workflow but omits explanation of lat/lng/radius, pagination, and error scenarios. Lacks enough detail for an agent to use all parameters correctly.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, description adds value for include_geometry (explains default behavior) and highlights name as primary search key. However, lat, lng, and radius remain undocumented, and description does not clarify their role.

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?

Description clearly states 'Look up administrative divisions' in Overture Maps, listing subtypes and search attributes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_places or find_buildings.

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?

Provides clear context: search by name, optionally narrow by country/subtype/admin_level, and set include_geometry only if needed. However, no explicit comparison with sibling tools (e.g., when to use search_places instead).

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