Dict Areas

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 does disclose the response shape (a tree with numeric ids) and the effect of the case parameter, but it omits that this is a read-only, static dictionary and, more importantly, that the hh.ru area tree is very large, which materially affects an agent's decision to call it.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and hierarchy levels, then the optional parameter. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical '(areas)' is slightly bureaucratic.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool this covers the essentials, but with zero annotation coverage and a huge, hierarchical return value, an agent would benefit from knowing the read-only nature and roughly how large the payload is. The description stops short of that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a bare anyOf string/null, the description does real work: it marks the parameter optional and names the one meaningful value ('prepositional') plus its effect on returned names. It still doesn't say whether other case values are accepted or what the default naming looks like, so the compensation is partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus the exact resource ('full tree of hh.ru regions (areas)') and enumerates the levels covered: countries, federal subjects and cities with numeric ids. That scope ('full tree') implicitly separates it from single-item siblings such as dict_area and dict_area_countries, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 can infer this is for looking up region ids or the complete area hierarchy, but the description never states when to prefer it over dict_area, dict_area_countries, suggest_areas or suggest_area_leaves. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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