Philippine-Geocoding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the hierarchy returns (e.g., tree structure, list), error handling for invalid codes, or whether it's a lightweight lookup versus expensive computation.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does, though it could be slightly more informative about the code parameter.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format (critical for 'hierarchy'), error conditions, code format requirements, or how this differs from the 33 sibling tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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% (parameter 'code' has no description in schema). The description only mentions 'for a specific code' without explaining what constitutes a valid code (e.g., geographic code format, length, examples). This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation for the single required parameter.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('complete geographic hierarchy') with specific scope ('for a specific code') and clarifies what it shows ('parent entities'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hierarchy rather than individual entities or lists, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 the many sibling tools. With 33 sibling tools including various get_* and search/validate tools, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific hierarchy tool over alternatives like get_region, get_province, or search_by_name.

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