analysis_area

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses caching behavior, the effect of fast mode (skipping OSMnx downloads), and the return structure. It could mention database interactions or rate limits, but the provided information is sufficient for safe usage.

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 well-structured with sections (main description, caching note, fast mode, Args, Returns). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the fast mode paragraph contains some repetition (e.g., 'skip road connectivity checks' appears twice), making it slightly less concise.

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 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive coverage: parameter semantics, return format (including keys), caching behavior, and a performance optimization tip. It is fully adequate for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. The Args section provides clear, detailed explanations for all 11 parameters, including purpose, defaults, and special values (e.g., road_radius_km=0 to skip). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type/default entries.

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's purpose: 'Analyze a geographic area for suitable stargazing locations.' It specifies the verb (analyze), resource (geographic area), and domain (stargazing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle celestial data, weather, or planning.

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 includes specific guidance on when to use 'fast mode' (road_radius_km=0) for scenarios without road connectivity needs. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools or conditions when not to use this tool, though the fast mode advice provides clear context for a common alternative.

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