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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: source dataset, availability, empty-report caveat, return metadata, and units, though it omits rate limits or authentication needs.

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?

Three sentences with the purpose and caveat front-loaded; the units sentence is compact. No wasted words, though the units list is somewhat tangential to fish kills.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool, the description provides source and interpretive caveat but omits any explanation of the query parameters and gives only a vague return description ('data and source/freshness metadata'), insufficient for effective filtering.

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% and the description never mentions the bbox or category parameters, leaving their meaning and usage entirely unexplained. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

States a specific resource: 'Reported fish kills from the published agency dataset', making clear what data is retrieved. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling data-retrieval tools like get_algae_reports or get_pollution_notices.

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?

Provides only a caveat about empty reports not establishing safe conditions, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites for invocation.

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