Philippine-Geocoding

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 states a read operation ('Get') but fails to mention critical details like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of geographic data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or output format, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively in context with its many siblings.

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, with one parameter 'districtCode' undocumented. The description adds minimal value by implying that 'districtCode' identifies a specific district, but it doesn't clarify the format, valid values, or examples. This partially compensates for the schema gap but remains insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 sub-municipalities within a specific district'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_district_municipalities' or 'get_district_cities_municipalities', which might retrieve similar or overlapping data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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, such as 'get_district_municipalities' or 'get_district_cities_municipalities' from the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without comparative insight.

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