get_dataset_for_area

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned components, explains the subtle `history_months` semantics with a concrete example, and states the `country` matching requirement. It stops short of explicitly saying the operation is read-only, but the 'get' framing makes that reasonably clear.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter semantics that add real value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the return contents, parameter constraints, and the relationship to `list_area_datasets`, while the existing output schema handles return-shape details. It could be slightly more explicit about `area_id` format or error conditions, but nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains `dataset`, `history_months`, and `country`, including the non-obvious 'actual months' behavior. `area_id` is only indirectly defined via its relationship to `country`, leaving a small gap.

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 operation: 'Full detail for one dataset in one area' and specifies exactly what that includes (latest figure, written summary, caveat text, optional history). It also references `list_area_datasets`, distinguishing this retrieval tool from the listing sibling.

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?

It gives explicit invocation context: `dataset` must be a `series_key` from `list_area_datasets`' own response, and `country` must match the area's country. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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