arnfa_list_areas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds 'with real POI counts', which provides insight into the quality of results, and 'list/search' indicates read-only behavior. However, it does not describe return format, filtering details, or any limitations, so it is only partially transparent.

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, both informative and front-loaded with the essential purpose. No filler or repetition of schema details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list/search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's scope, use case, and highlights the 'real POI counts' feature. It gives enough context for an agent to know when to use it, though it could be slightly clearer on how the parameters interact.

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 schema describes the 'query' parameter but not 'tier'. The description mentions categories (neighborhoods, districts, province cities, tourist spots) that loosely correspond to the tier enum but does not explicitly map them or explain that the parameters are optional. This adds some context but does not fully compensate for the 50% schema coverage.

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 'List/search Arnfa's plannable areas across Thailand' with specific granularity levels (Bangkok neighbourhoods & districts, all 76 province cities, tourist spots). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arnfa_plan_day or arnfa_sky_now, which are clearly different in purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use to find a valid `area` key', which gives a concrete use case and directs when to invoke this tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it misses the highest bar for explicit distinctions.

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