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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It voluntarily discloses two important behaviors: output geometry is clipped to the suburb boundary, and an empty collection means the hazard is not present rather than an error. These go beyond the basic 'returns hazard polygons' reading and materially help the agent interpret results.

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 entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence. Every clause adds signal: the resource, the per-layer scope, the clipping behavior, and the empty-collection interpretation. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only geometry tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential request semantics and result interpretation. It does not repeat return-value details because an output schema exists, and the `geojson` option is already documented. The main missing piece is explicit guidance about when to choose this over related hazard/risk tools, but that is secondary.

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 input schema already covers `layer` via an enum and `geojson` with a detailed boolean description. The tool description reinforces `layer` and `suburb_name` through 'one layer' and 'suburb boundary', but it adds no format, validation, or lookup guidance for `suburb_name`. At 67% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully close the gap.

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 output ('hazard polygons'), a scope ('one layer'), and a spatial constraint ('clipped to the suburb boundary'). The parenthetical also clarifies the empty-collection case, which is non-obvious and useful. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling suburb shape tools and hazard count 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?

The description implies the tool is for fetching a single hazard layer's geometry rather than counts or property-level risk details, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it. The empty-collection note is interpretation guidance, not selection guidance, so the agent must still infer the routing from the name and sibling list.

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