Find an area (polygon)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the call yields (polygon + size), but says nothing about ambiguous name matches, not-found behavior, or size units — meaningful gaps for an open-world lookup.

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?

A single tight clause with zero filler; the outputs and the downstream purpose are both front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: input is an area name, output is a WKT polygon and its size, and it feeds the two area-download tools. Only edge-case behavior (no match, multiple matches, units) is absent.

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% and the single 'query' parameter already carries an example ('Opština Brus', 'Lake Bled'). The description only restates 'named area', adding no new constraints such as expected granularity or matching rules, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the concrete outputs (boundary polygon in WKT plus area size) for a named area, which is far more specific than the name 'find_area' alone. It also names the downstream consumers, distinguishing it from siblings like find_location or get_weather. It stops short of a clean verb+resource phrasing, reading as a noun phrase.

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?

'for estimate_area_download / request_area_download' implies this is a prerequisite lookup step before those tools, giving usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no differentiation from find_location, the obvious alternative for resolving a place.

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