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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds substantial value by specifying the scale ('Scores run 0 to 100; higher means more risk'), the data sources (INFORM Risk Index, ND-GAIN, World Bank), and the ~160 indicator count with year/source/benchmarks. This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotations, though return format details are left to the 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return content, then the scale interpretation. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler. The structure moves from identity to detail to semantics efficiently.

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 needn't explain return values in full. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description provides complete context: what the tool returns, what the optional flag unlocks, and how to interpret the scores. Nothing required for correct invocation is 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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description explains that include_indicators=true adds about 160 indicators with values, years, sources, and benchmarks, which enriches the meaning of that flag but does not add syntax or format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('A country's climate and disaster risk from the Criora Atlas') and enumerates exactly what the profile contains (overall risk score and class, domain scores, income group, region). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_climate_profile or compare_countries 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?

Usage is implied by the content description but not explicit. The description does not say when to use this vs get_climate_profile, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives. It hints at a use case through include_indicators but never states when/when-not.

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