geometry.area_polygon

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior: the last point auto-connects to the first, the result is always non-negative, and self-intersecting input yields inaccurate area. These are genuine traits beyond the annotations.

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-loads purpose, then parameter format, then edge-case caveats in an economical sequence. Every sentence is functional, though it could be marginally tighter.

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?

An output schema exists so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the single parameter plus input constraints are well covered. The description is essentially complete 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden and does so: it documents the [[x, y], ...] nesting, that values are Decimal strings, the 3-vertex minimum, edge ordering, and the auto-closing of the ring. This fully compensates for 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?

States a specific verb (계산한다), resource (다각형 넓이), and named algorithm (신발끈 공식/Shoelace), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like area_triangle, area_rectangle, and area_circle. An agent can tell exactly what it computes.

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?

Specifies that vertices must be given in edge-order with 3+ points, and warns that crossing edges or scrambled order produce wrong results. Clear context for correct use, though it does not explicitly route to a shape-specific sibling when the polygon is a simple triangle or rectangle.

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