get_regional_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that codes are automatically converted to human-readable names, returns a markdown table, and that the summary option reduces data volume. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any error handling, rate limits, or side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a note about code conversion, an organized Args list with each parameter on its own line, and a Returns section. No redundant information, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. The description covers all parameters, mentions the summary behavior, and the prerequisite of search_statistics. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings, and doesn't mention error scenarios or edge cases, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It explains every parameter: stats_data_id (from search_statistics), area (with examples), tab_code, time_code, cat01_code (filtering), limit (with default), and summary (with behavior). This is comprehensive and adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 retrieves and formats regional statistics data, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions code conversion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_population or get_regional_profile, so the agent must infer which tool fits based on names.

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 mentions that stats_data_id is obtained from search_statistics, which implies a prerequisite. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. There is no statement like 'use this for general statistics' or 'for population-specific data, use get_population'.

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