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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'No external action' usefully indicates the tool has no side effects, but it says nothing about permissions, validation behavior, failure modes, or what the check returns.

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 very short and front-loads a partial purpose, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness. 'No external action' is a fragment that does not earn its place without more context.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide or what a successful preflight response means.

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 has three parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention symptom, location, or authority_scope at all. It fails to 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 gives a verb ('Check') and a vague object ('scope and material inputs'), but it does not clearly state what a water decision preflight actually validates or how it relates to siblings like get_water_decision. An agent can infer it is a preliminary validation step, but the purpose remains under-specified.

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 only usage-like signal is 'No external action,' which hints at a safe, non-mutating call but does not say when to use this tool instead of describe_water_capability or get_water_decision. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing instructions.

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