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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the response is a mixed list with infra_subtype, pipeline rows carry different fields than LNG rows, the default is operating-only, and include_minor bypasses that default. This gives the agent a reliable model of what the tool returns without an output 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 dense but well-organized: it leads with the combined resource scope, then explains the mixed output, per-type fields, example use cases, and parameter switches. Each sentence adds value, though the list of example questions could be trimmed without much loss.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, mixed return types), the description covers the essential disambiguation logic, default behavior, and representative use cases. It does not mention pagination behavior or the meaning of the coordinate bounds, but the parameter schema already covers limit and the coordinate names are reasonably clear.

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 coverage is only 56%, but the description compensates for key parameters by explaining fuel values, the operating-only default, and include_minor's effect. It also clarifies the meaning of returned rows and fields. The four coordinate parameters remain undocumented, though their names are self-explanatory for a bounding-box query.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Query'), the exact resources covered (gas pipelines, oil/NGL pipelines, LNG terminals), and notes that a single call returns all three with an infra_subtype field to disambiguate. This clearly distinguishes it from other query_* siblings, which each target different infrastructure or event types.

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 gives concrete example questions ('Russian gas pipelines into Europe', 'LNG export terminals in Qatar') and explains how to slice results with fuel, facility_type, and include_minor. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but it provides clear usage context and parameter-driven selection.

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