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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/open-world, but the description goes further by disclosing the epistemic contract: it 'reports what was CHECKED and what is unknown separately, so absence of a warning is never presented as an all-clear.' This is critical behavioral context an agent cannot derive from annotations and directly shapes how the result should be interpreted.

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?

Front-loaded with the data coverage and return value, then the usage triggers, then the interpretive caveat. Dense but each sentence earns its place; the opening enumeration is long, though it is doing real disambiguation work.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the 0-100 score and explains the checked-vs-unknown split. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the two coordinates, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 schema documents both parameters at 100% coverage with valid ranges, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline 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?

Specifies the verb (check), resource (live safety conditions), and the exact data domains covered: wildfire perimeters, streamflow vs seasonal normals, weather advisories, closures, and air quality. It also names the concrete output (a 0-100 Trip Safety Score), which cleanly separates it from the sibling discovery tools find_campgrounds and find_trails.

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?

Explicitly enumerates trigger conditions — 'whenever someone asks whether a place is safe to visit, whether a fire or smoke is affecting it, whether a trail or road is closed, or whether a river is runnable.' This is a near-complete routing rule with no inference required.

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