Philippine-Geocoding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data (implying read-only), but doesn't specify whether this is a filtered list, what format the output takes, whether there are pagination limits, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (list of city objects? just names?), doesn't address error cases, and provides minimal parameter guidance. Given the complexity of geographic hierarchy tools in this server, more context is needed.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it mentions 'specific district' which implies the 'districtCode' parameter, it provides no guidance on what format the code should take, whether it's a numeric code, string identifier, or what valid values might be. This leaves the single required parameter inadequately documented.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all cities within a specific district'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from broader tools like 'get_cities' by specifying the district scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_district_cities_municipalities'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for retrieving geographic entities (e.g., 'get_cities', 'get_district_cities_municipalities', 'get_region_cities'), there's no indication of when this specific district-focused query is appropriate versus broader or more specific alternatives.

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