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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the data source and vintage, the 100 m grid, the meaning of negative values, the no_data/no_reflectors semantics, and the quota cost of 1 unit. It also notes that the response carries source, licence, and attribution, which are important behavioral details for downstream use.

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 front-loaded with the core measurement and its output fields, then follows with data provenance, no_data semantics, and coverage rules. It is dense but mostly earns its length; the single long paragraph is slightly harder to scan than a structured format would be.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior, which it does comprehensively: vertical velocity, fastest-sinking cell, east-west velocity, subsidence class, yearly displacement, and no_data status are all named. It also covers coverage rules, attribution, and quota cost, leaving little 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%, so the schema already documents reference, country, latitude, and longitude thoroughly, including the same country list for when lat/lon are required. The description reinforces the reference-versus-coordinates rule and points to get_parcel as the source of coordinates, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 states a precise verb and resource: measuring whether the ground under a parcel sinks or rises, using satellite radar, with specific outputs like mean vertical velocity in mm/year. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_terrain, get_solar_potential, and get_agriculture.

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?

It gives concrete usage conditions: in ES, PV, NA, PT, FR, IT and DE the reference alone is enough, while elsewhere latitude and longitude must also be passed from get_parcel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the required-data guidance is strong.

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