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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that — the 500-record cap, automatic background execution past 500 rows with job_id/get_job, aggregation of a value column, and that render returns a link plus GeoJSON and KML. It stops short of stating auth requirements or failure handling for unplaced rows beyond 'the reason'.

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 core is front-loaded, but the single dense paragraph packs parentheticals, asides ('the claims view', 'a place near an edge is worth a look either way') and mixed concerns into one block. Most content earns its place, yet the rambling style makes it harder to scan than it needs to be for an 11-parameter tool.

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 complex, 11-parameter, nested-schema tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: result record shape, distance banding, limits, background jobs, and map rendering outputs. Only minor gaps remain (peril/region/min_level semantics, permission requirements).

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 coverage is only 55%, but the description compensates well: it explains the source-by-reference pattern (sheet/file/run, header-based column discovery), the records vs addresses split, the near_km default of 5, the value_field auto-detection names, and the background flag. Coverage gaps remain for perils, region, min_level and title, which the description never explains.

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: take up to 500 addresses/points and test them 'against the warnings in force now', classifying each as inside, near, clear, or unplaced. It explicitly names the sibling it draws warnings from (get_live_hazards), so an agent can distinguish it from the raw hazard listing without opening a 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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: use source/run as a background job for large inputs, and 'Set render to true only when the user wants to keep or share the map' with update_map as the follow-up. It lacks explicit when-not-this-tool exclusions versus siblings like get_area_risk or find_nearby, but the conditions it does state are actionable.

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