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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the composite nature of the result (this week's daily risk, nearby events, exposure headline set, country profile), which tells the agent this is an aggregating call rather than a single-dimension query. It does not mention latency, rate limits, or data staleness.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core claim, and the long parenthetical enumeration of climate exposures is informative rather than padding. The listing is dense but each item clarifies scope, so it largely earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — what the tool aggregates, when to prefer it, and where to go for depth — is fully addressed, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 100%: place, latitude, and longitude are each documented with type, bounds, and usage notes in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (a place) and enumerates exactly what the aggregate answer contains: daily forecast risk, nearby hazards, headline climate exposures, and the country risk profile. It also contrasts itself with get_climate_profile, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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 best first call for a general question about a location" gives explicit routing guidance and names get_climate_profile as the deeper alternative for climate layers. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g., for a single-hazard lookup where get_hazards_near or get_forecast would be leaner), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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