analyze_area

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this thoroughly by listing what the tool returns (including the conditional 'if cached' for NDVI history), the input constraints, the meaning of depth, and supported locales. It also communicates the tool's analytical, read-oriented nature without explicitly saying 'read-only'.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity, the description is tightly structured: a lead sentence, a bulleted list of return fields, and a compact parameter usage section. Every sentence adds value and avoids redundancy, making it easy to scan for key facts.

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 high complexity (7 parameters, rich output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the output structure, input constraints, parameter semantics, and even edge cases like 'if cached'. The existence of an output schema further reduces the burden, but the description already provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema gives no descriptions (0% schema description coverage), so the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter. It defines the exclusive-OR requirement for the four identifier parameters, gives an example for query, enumerates depth options, and lists valid locale values. This goes beyond the schema's raw type definitions.

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 and resource ('Build a structured spatial context for this area') and enumerates the contents of the returned JSON payload, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_parcel or get_nursery, which are narrower in scope.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool and explicitly encodes a critical usage rule ('Exactly one of parcel_id | cadastral_number | nursery_id | geojson must be provided'). It also explains the role of query and depth parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases relative to sibling tools, so it stops short of full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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