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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Bushfire + flood — bundle', which fails to disclose what the tool actually returns, any permissions required, or side effects. It is a label, not a behavioral explanation.

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 only four words, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks any structured sentences or additional context that could clarify usage or behavior.

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, but the description is too vague. It does not explain what the output contains beyond 'bushfire + flood', does not mention sub-risks or geojson behavior, and does not clarify when to use it. The output schema exists but the description itself is incomplete.

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 description adds nothing about parameters. The schema describes geojson, but suburb_name is undocumented in both schema and description. With schema coverage at 50%, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 returns a bundle of bushfire and flood risks for a suburb, identifying the resource and action. It differentiates from siblings like suburbs_risks_bushfire and suburbs_risks_flood by explicitly naming both risk types.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the individual risk tools. It does not state that this is the preferred choice when both risk types are needed, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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