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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it states the 1 km radius, explains that a returned row means 'found nearby' not 'property is eroding', and discloses the 3¢ per-call price. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the 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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose and spatial scope come first, followed by the critical output interpretation and pricing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers core semantics and pricing. However, it falls short on explaining when to use this specific risk tool versus related risk siblingsorestation or environment tools, and it leaves `gnaf_id` without any explanatory context.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented `gnaf_id` parameter at all. The `geojson` parameter is already described in the schema, so the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what structured data already provides.

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 names a specific resource ('Coastal / soil erosion overlays') and a clear spatial scope ('within 1 km'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling risk tools by hazard type. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'List', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 crucial interpretation note about `on_property` but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as properties_risks_all, properties_risks_environment, or properties_risks_landslide. There is no explicit 'use this for erosion only' or alternative-routing information.

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