List Philippine administrative units

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds a useful behavioral detail about the parent_code=None case and the 'children' relationship. However, it does not disclose potential error behaviors, rate limits, or any other side effects beyond the schema, so transparency is adequate but not exceptional.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function and the key special case. There is no redundancy or filler; every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema is thorough, with all parameters explained and an output schema present. The description covers the primary use cases (browsing children or listing top-level regions) adequately. A brief note distinguishing it from related tools like get_location_hierarchy would improve completeness, but for the given complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (level, limit, offset, parent_code), including the special behavior of parent_code=None returning regions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already covers. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 browses children of a PSGC node, and explicitly handles the case where parent_code is None to return top-level regions. It specifies the resource and scope concisely. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_location_hierarchy or resolve_ph_location, so it misses the full mark for purpose clarity.

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 usage for navigating the administrative hierarchy by providing a parent_code or omitting it to get regions. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The conditional statement about parent_code is helpful but insufficient for clear exclusions.

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