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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the tool never contacts, books, hires, purchases from, or pays any provider, signaling a purely advisory/no-side-effect operation. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the output is a recommendation vs. a plan, so coverage remains partial.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though extremely terse given the tool's parameter complexity.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and six parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It neither explains the return shape (diagnosis? recommendation? urgency?) nor documents the inputs, so the agent lacks enough to call it 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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters (symptom, location, duration, constraints, authority_scope, warning_signals), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Crucially, authority_scope defaults to decision_only with no explanation, and warning_signals/constraints are left wholly undefined, so an agent cannot populate them correctly.

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 verb+resource ("Return Belanar household-water decision support"), so the agent knows this yields a recommendation rather than performing an action. However, it offers no differentiation from the siblings preflight_water_decision and describe_water_capability, leaving the agent unable to tell which of the three decision-related tools to call.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus its two siblings, nor prerequisites or context. The only guidance is a negative scope exclusion (never contacting/booking/paying a provider), which constrains behavior rather than telling the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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