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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully defines what 'steep' means and what statistics are returned, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not mention the data source, potential limitations, or how the output is structured beyond the available output 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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The key metric definitions and the steepness threshold are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential semantic content: what is measured and how 'steep' is defined. It is slightly incomplete on explicit parameter binding and usage context, but otherwise adequately covers what the agent needs.

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 provides no description for suburb_name, and the description never explicitly says the metrics are 'for a given suburb' or explains how to supply the name. The parameter name and tool naming convention make it inferable, but with 0% schema coverage the description should compensate more explicitly.

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 names the specific outputs: median/90th-percentile property gradient and share of steep properties (>10°). This distinguishes it from other risk tools by its slope focus, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly contrast with sibling risk tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of suburbs_risks_all, suburbs_risks_landslide, or other related siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided, so the agent must infer usage 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.