get_monitored_area

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: discloses that anomaly flags come from a median-absolute-deviation test, that the result includes full measurement history with per-acquisition values and flags, and that the tool is "free of token charges." No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, anomaly algorithm, cost. Front-loaded with the core action, no fluff or redundancy. Ideal length for a simple read tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one required param, no nested objects, output schema present), the description fully equips an agent: what is returned, how to use it, what's behind anomaly flags, and cost implications. Complete for its scope.

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 parameter description already explains area_id's provenance and polygon_id alias. The main description does not add new parameter-level semantics; it merely reinforces the source of area_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Fetch one monitored area with its full measurement history," immediately distinguishing it from the sibling list_monitored_areas, which reports only a summary number. The added context that this is "the time series behind the number" further clarifies its unique role.

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?

Explicitly states intended use cases: "use it to answer 'is it going up', 'when did it change', or 'how unusual is today'." This gives clear guidance on when to choose this tool over list_monitored_areas and other analytical siblings.

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