search_areas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the trigram matching behavior, which is a useful algorithmic detail for predicting fuzzy-match responses. It does not describe return format or pagination, but with strong annotations the added behavioral context earns a solid score.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a precise algorithmic note. No redundant wording; every phrase adds value. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (searches across boundary types, fuzzy matching) plus safety via annotations. It could mention return format, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not repeat parameter details but also adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It aligns with the 'query' parameter (search by name), but the schema is sufficient.

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: searching for geographic areas by name across multiple boundary types (county, state, CBSA, census tract, ZIP). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('geographic areas'), and the boundary list distinguishes it from sibling zip-only 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 phrase 'across all boundary types' implies a general-use search tool, and 'fuzzy name search' indicates tolerance for typos. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is the broad search option.

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