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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns: percentages for each drought level and the total affected area. However, it does not disclose data freshness, source, or potential limitations, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 reasonably concise, with the main purpose stated upfront. The first and second sentences are slightly redundant (e.g., 'total affected area percentages' is repeated as 'total area affected'), but the overall structure is clear and not overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, output content, and a usage hint. It does not explicitly explain how this tool compares to siblings, but the output schema handles return values, so the description is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is complete (100%). The description adds context about the output (drought levels and total area), but with no parameters to describe, the schema and description together are sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for parameter gaps.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a national drought summary with total affected area percentages.' It also specifies the scope ('across the entire country') and the content (drought levels D0 through D4), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_drought and get_drought_history.

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 description provides a usage context: 'Useful for getting a quick picture of drought conditions across the entire country.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough to differentiate from more detailed or historical tools.

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