house_pricesv2get_area

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 but provides minimal information. It mentions using exact values from another endpoint for best results, which hints at input validation behavior, but doesn't describe what the tool returns, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief (two sentences) but not optimally structured. The first sentence is somewhat confusing as it describes usage context rather than stating the tool's purpose upfront. While concise, the structure doesn't effectively communicate the most important information first, and the second sentence feels more like an example than core documentation.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (presumably area information or statistics given the name), doesn't describe error conditions or response format, and provides minimal behavioral context. The description assumes too much prior knowledge about the API ecosystem without being self-contained.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that geoString should use 'exact values returned in .../house-prices/v2/auto-complete endpoint for best result,' but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 fails to state what the tool actually does - it only mentions using it 'along with' another endpoint to get a geo id, but doesn't specify what this tool itself returns or accomplishes. The description is tautological in that it restates the name ('get_area') without explaining what 'area' means in this context. There's no clear verb+resource statement of purpose.

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 clear context about when to use this tool - specifically mentioning it should be used with the auto-complete endpoint to get related geo ids. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by referencing the specific v2auto_complete endpoint, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or what alternatives exist for different use cases.

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