Dict Area Countries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return content (country names with numeric ids) and the trust boundary ('known to hh.ru'). It does not say whether the list is complete/cached, whether auth is required, or how results are ordered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical adds a genuinely useful fact (country = area) rather than restating the name.

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?

It is a simple zero-parameter dictionary call and the description covers what comes back, which is the main risk area given there is no output schema. It stops short of explaining how the returned ids relate to the area ids used by sibling tools, which is the one thing an agent still has to guess.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of numeric ids is return-value context rather than parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get the list of countries) plus the source of truth (known to hh.ru) and the payload (numeric ids). The parenthetical 'each country is also an area' implicitly links it to the dict_areas/dict_area siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 only implied: an agent infers this is the lookup for country ids, likely to feed area-based filters elsewhere. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over dict_areas, dict_area, or suggest_areas, and no prerequisite or exclusion is given.

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