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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it synthesizes data from multiple federal sources and returns a combined risk score, but it doesn't disclose limitations or what the output means beyond the list. No contradiction.

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 well-structured with a main action, USE WHEN, and RETURNS sections. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description lists return elements (wildfire hazard zone, seismic risk zone, EPA contamination site proximity, radon zone level, soil concerns, combined risk score) and data sources, which is comprehensive. Minor gaps: it doesn't explicitly state U.S.-only scope or how the combined risk score is calculated.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (address, latitude, longitude) at 100%. The description only restates that an address OR coordinates are accepted, which adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'preferred' and 'use if no address' notes. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it 'Run full environmental risk screening for a property using EPA, USGS, NOAA, and USDA data' and lists specific hazard categories (wildfire, seismic, contamination, radon, soil). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like check_flood_zone which are narrower.

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 provides a 'USE WHEN' section with explicit trigger phrases ('environmental hazards', 'wildfire risk', 'contamination', 'is this area safe'), giving clear context for when to invoke. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like check_flood_zone for flood-only queries, so it lacks exclusions.

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