get_areas_subtree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions performance ('lighter') but provides no behavioral detail beyond purpose: no statement that it is read-only, no description of the response format, no mention of error behavior or limits. For a simple read tool this is minimal, but given the absence of annotations, more disclosure (e.g., that it returns a tree structure, that raw toggles the format) would be expected, even though the raw parameter is covered by the schema.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, includes a concrete example, and conveys the comparative advantage (lighter) in a compact dash clause. Every word 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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what it does and gives an example, but does not explicitly state the relationship to the sibling get_areas (only implies it) or describe the expected return shape (e.g., a nested list of regions/cities). Without annotations, an agent might not know exactly what to expect, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the gap.

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% for both parameters (area_id and raw), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the example (113=Russia) already present in the schema but adds no new meaning or usage guidance beyond that. It does not clarify the effect of raw beyond the schema's 'full raw hh.ru JSON' vs 'compact' wording, so no extra value is contributed.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('regions/cities subtree') tied to a concrete example (area id 113=Russia). It differentiates from the sibling get_areas by explicitly calling out that it is 'lighter than the full /areas tree', which helps an agent select the right tool without opening schemas.

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 implies the appropriate context: use this when you need a subset of the full area tree, as it is 'lighter than the full /areas tree'. This suggests when to choose this over get_areas, though it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of get_areas when you only need a specific region' or list any exclusions. It is clear enough but not fully explicit.

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