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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: results carry fallback freshness, fault locations are approximate, and there is no restoration guarantee.

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 purpose, followed by constraints, sibling routing, and data-quality caveats. It is compact and every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main modes, key constraints, sibling alternative, and caveats; the remaining gap is incomplete documentation of parameters such as limit and min_occupancy.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It clarifies district/fault_number exclusivity and that dam filters apply only to dams, which partially covers the six parameters, but it leaves limit undocumented and only implies dam_name/min_occupancy through the phrase 'dam filters.'

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get ISKI active faults ... or dam occupancy.' It also distinguishes the two query modes via district/fault_number versus dam occupancy, and explicitly points nearby fault queries to a sibling tool, so an agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the 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?

It gives explicit mode constraints ('Dam filters apply only to dams; fault_number is exclusive with district') and names the alternative for nearby faults: istanbul_nearby(kind="water_fault"). This tells the agent both when the tool applies and when to route elsewhere.

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