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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the price (3¢ per call) and the overlay concept, but does not disclose what the tool returns, any side effects, authentication requirements, or other behavioral characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It has two parts: the main description and a price note. While it is not verbose, the brevity comes at the cost of content. It is acceptable as a concise statement but lacks necessary structure and detail.

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 only one parameter and an output schema exists, but the description is vague. It does not clarify what the overlay includes beyond examples, nor does it explain how the output relates to the input. Given many sibling risk tools, this description is incomplete for an agent to correctly select and use it. The output schema exists but the description does not help interpret it.

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 schema has one required parameter (gnaf_id), but the description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter context, leaving the agent to infer that gnaf_id is the property identifier.

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 resource (environmental-risk overlay) and gives examples (contamination, salinity), which distinguishes it from sibling risk tools like bushfire or flood. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the noun phrase to imply retrieval. It is clear enough but not fully explicit.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling risk tools (e.g., properties_risks_bushfire, properties_risks_flood). There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when to choose this over a more specific risk tool.

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