get_area_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that the tool checks health_criteria against daily note metadata and returns JSON with area, period, and criteria results. This gives a clear read-only behavior profile and expected return shape, though it does not mention permissions or potential side effects explicitly.

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 a one-line summary, a short mechanism explanation, and explicit Args/Returns sections. It is compact and every section provides necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and return structure, making it usable for a basic invocation. However, it lacks guidance on selecting this tool among the many report-like siblings and does not clarify edge cases such as invalid area names or unsupported period formats. It is adequate but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It does so well: 'area' is explained as name or ID with examples ('health', 'HEA'), and 'period' is explained with valid values ('week', 'month', '2026-W11', '2026-03'). This is useful and mostly complete, though the exact accepted area ID format is not exhaustively specified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get area health report: criteria vs actuals for a period.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and mentions the area health concept, which helps distinguish it from generic note or reporting tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with similar sibling report tools.

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 when to use this tool: when you need area health criteria versus actuals for a period. It gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, and there are several similar reporting tools available such as get_activity_report, get_dashboard_report, and export_area_metrics.

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