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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that a returned row means 'found nearby' rather than 'property at risk', preventing a common misinterpretation. It also states the cost per call (3¢), adding transparency about usage charges. It does not cover all possible behaviors but covers the most critical one.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and a price note. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the crucial semantic clarification and cost. There is zero fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 risk-overlay tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential context: the spatial scope (1 km), the meaning of the on_property flag, and the cost. It does not mention authentication or other prerequisites, but these are likely covered by the output schema and general API context. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 50%—the geojson parameter is well documented, but gnaf_id has no schema description. The tool description does not compensate for this gap; it does not explain what gnaf_id represents or how to obtain it. Given the low coverage, the description should have provided parameter context but did not.

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 the tool's function: providing landslide-risk overlays within a 1 km radius. It also clarifies the meaning of the `on_property` field, which is essential for correct interpretation. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling risk tools, the name and content make the purpose 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as properties_risks_all or properties_risks_flood. It implies usage for landslide risk but offers no exclusions or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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