Get Areas

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive hints. The description adds value by detailing the return fields and parameter behavior (e.g., filter syntax, default top), providing context beyond 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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by entity explanation, parameter list, and return fields. It is efficient with no redundant sentences, though could be slightly 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?

Given no output schema, the description includes all key return fields. It covers parameters, behavior, and context. Siblings are distinct, and the tool's role is clear. Adequate for agent invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description enriches both parameters: gives an OData filter example, states default top=100, and mentions max results in schema but not in description. This adds practical usage context beyond raw 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 it lists agricultural areas from SIA AreaService, specifies what areas represent, and lists return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get tools (e.g., sia_get_fields), though the entity type is distinct.

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 implies usage for listing areas with optional filtering and pagination, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sia_get_crop_zones or sia_get_fields.

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