mp_get_area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what 'detailed information' includes, how missing or invalid IDs are handled, or whether authentication is required. Basic behavioral intent is clear, but important details remain implicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.

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?

For a one-parameter getter, the description covers the core operation but lacks details about the response content, error behavior, or prerequisites such as authentication. Without an output schema or annotations, these gaps are noticeable but not crippling for a simple read tool.

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 100%, with areaId documented as 'Mountain Project area ID'. The description only echoes that it is a numeric ID, adding no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('climbing area'), and specifies the access method ('by numeric ID'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like mp_search (search-based) and mp_get_route (route-specific).

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 the tool is used when the caller already has a numeric area ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over mp_search or mp_resolve_id, nor any exclusions. Usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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