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. While it indicates this is a search operation, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether results are paginated, what format the results take, whether there are rate limits, or how fuzzy matching works. The description provides only basic functional information without operational 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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration or wasted words.

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 search tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, result format, search behavior (exact vs. fuzzy matching), or how this tool relates to the many specific retrieval sibling tools. The description provides only basic functional context.

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 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what the 'name', 'type', or 'limit' parameters mean or how they should be used. The description mentions searching 'by name' which hints at the 'name' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'type' parameter's purpose or acceptable values, nor the 'limit' parameter's effect on results.

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 tool's purpose as searching for geographic entities by name across all administrative levels (regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays). It specifies both the verb ('search') and the resource ('geographic entities'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_barangay or get_cities which appear to retrieve specific entities rather than search across all levels.

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 implies this tool should be used for broad searches across all geographic entity types, while sibling tools like get_barangay or get_cities appear to retrieve specific entity types. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus the many specific retrieval tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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