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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'current' temporal aspect and the active flood class filter, but does not describe what happens when no stations match or provide deeper behavioral context (e.g., freshness, rate limits). With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, includes the classification scale, and mentions the optional filter. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or ambiguity.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention that the result is a list of stations, but the output schema likely provides that. The description adequately captures the tool's role for the given complexity.

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%: both locale and federalState have full descriptions in the schema. The description only reaffirms the optional federal state filter without adding new meaning, so the schema carries the semantic load. 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 clearly states that the tool returns the current flood situation for stations with an active LHP flood class (1 small … 4 very large), with an optional federal state filter. This specific verb+resource+scope makes it immediately distinct from siblings like get_forecast and get_weather.

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 phrase 'Current flood situation' provides clear contextual when-to-use guidance, and the optional per-state filter is explicit. However, it does not contrast with alternatives or state exclusions, though the name and sibling context make the intended use unambiguous.

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