list_area_datasets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it states what is returned (latest figure, year-on-year change, caveat labels only) and the failure mode (404 'unknown geography' when country doesn't match). This gives an agent concrete expectations beyond the bare tool name.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, output contents, the alternative for full detail, and the prerequisite/error condition. The description is compact, front-loaded, and easy for an agent to parse 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, error behavior, and the appropriate sibling for deeper detail. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by giving concrete area_id formats ('county:kerry', 'uk:lad:e09000033'), explaining that area ids come from list_areas, and clarifying that country must match the originating call. It doesn't enumerate all country values, but country has a default and a clear dependency, which is sufficient.

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 states a specific action ('List every dataset available for one area') and identifies the resource clearly, so an agent immediately knows what this tool does. It also distinguishes itself from get_dataset_for_area by noting that it returns caveat labels only, not full caveat text.

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 explicitly routes to get_dataset_for_area when full caveat detail is needed, and gives prerequisites: area ids come from list_areas and country must match the originating call. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_datasets, but the 'one area' scope implies the distinction.

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