Search areas

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds non-obvious behavioral traits: zero-score areas are dropped entirely and a WebSocket failure returns an empty list instead of raising an error. That failure-degradation detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey and prevents misreading an empty result as 'no matches'.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by clearly labeled Use when / Not for / Limits sections; every sentence carries information except the 'Returns' line, which restates the output schema that already exists. Minor redundancy, not bloat.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with a full schema, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers selection criteria, ranking semantics, and failure behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `limit` caps a descending-sorted, zero-filtered result set, clarifying that limit applies after score filtering rather than to the raw registry.

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?

States a specific operation on a specific resource: 'Fuzzy-rank areas by name.' It also names the sibling it is not (areas_list_areas) and describes the ranking/filtering pipeline (scores above 0, top-N sorted descending), so an agent can distinguish it from the exact-list tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' clause ('you don't know an area's exact id and want a ranked guess from a name fragment') and an explicit 'Not for' clause routing to areas_list_areas for an exact, unranked list. Both the trigger and the alternative are spelled out.

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