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

The description discloses pricing behavior ('Flat 30¢ — may grow without increasing the bundle price as new overlays are added') and the geojson clipping behavior ('1km-radius-clipped'). However, it contains an internal contradiction: it says 'Flat 30¢' then later says 'Price: 48¢ per call.' This is confusing and undermines transparency. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and this inconsistency is a significant flaw.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The geojson behavior is explained in a dedicated paragraph. However, the pricing contradiction ('Flat 30¢' vs '48¢ per call') is confusing and wastes the reader's attention. Otherwise, every sentence 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description explains the geojson option and pricing, but the pricing contradiction creates uncertainty. It also doesn't clarify whether the 48¢ price is the current price or the flat 30¢ is the bundle price. For a simple 2-param tool with an output schema, this is adequate but not complete.

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 50%: the geojson parameter is well-documented in the schema, but gnaf_id has no description. The description adds context for geojson (clipped to 1km radius, adds geojson_meta) but doesn't explain gnaf_id beyond the schema's type/required. With 50% coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves the key identifier parameter undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Every property-level risk overlay in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it from the individual risk tools (properties_risks_bushfire, properties_risks_flood, etc.) by emphasizing the aggregate 'all' nature. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it loses a point for not directly differentiating from the individual risk endpoints.

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 usage: use this when you want all property-level risk overlays in one call rather than calling individual risk endpoints. It also explains the optional geojson parameter's effect. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you only need one specific risk type, use the specific endpoint) or name alternatives.

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