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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and side-effect expectations are covered. The description adds that the result bundles mode, risk and geo layers, which is useful content-level context, but it says nothing about freshness, aggregation, or completeness of the state snapshot beyond annotations.

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?

Two very short sentences with no filler, and the usage trigger follows immediately. The opening fragment is syntactically elliptical ("Mode, risk and geo layers."), which costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and "mode, risk and geo layers" is thin for an aggregated state snapshot. It's enough for an agent to know roughly what comes back, but not enough to interpret the layers or know the shape of the response.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap here.

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?

"Call this when you need the radar's current mode/regime" implies a read of current operational state, and the first fragment lists returned layers (mode, risk, geo). However, the verb is absent and nothing distinguishes it from close siblings like get_current_regime, get_geo, or get_health, leaving the agent unsure how this differs from those.

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?

There is an explicit trigger ("Call this when you need the radar's current mode/regime"), which is better than no guidance. But no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, despite get_current_regime being an obvious overlapping sibling.

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