find_area

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses match semantics, result ordering (regions/nations before districts), the London disambiguation rule, and explicit coverage gaps for counties and Northern Ireland. It stops short of stating case sensitivity, result-set limits, or whether zero matches is an error, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core match rule, then precedence, then caveats; nothing is filler. The London parenthetical is longer than strictly necessary but it disambiguates a genuinely confusing naming case, so it earns most of its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is correctly omitted, and the remaining complexity (name ambiguity, hierarchical precedence, regional coverage gaps) is addressed. The one omission that matters for a resolution tool is whether the returned names/identifiers are what the sibling analysis tools expect as input, plus how an empty result should be read.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does: 'matching from the start of any word' defines how the free-text value is interpreted, and the examples clarify that a broader name yields multiple areas. It does not state case handling or whether the value must be a place name specifically, leaving a small gap given the full reliance on prose.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find areas by name') and spells out the match rule (start-of-word), which alone tells an agent this is the name-resolution tool rather than one of the analytical siblings. It never names a sibling or states the relationship ('use this to resolve a name before compare_two_areas'), so the differentiation is implicit from the verb rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the matching and coverage rules — a caller learns that counties are not valid areas and that Northern Ireland has no breakdown, which functions as a 'when not to expect results' signal. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the other area-taking tools, nor what to do when the lookup returns nothing.

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