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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns its keep by disclosing output shape and behavior not in the annotations: fixed search radii (wildfires within 60 km, road reports within 10 km), result caps (top 3 free, 5 with a pass), and the ordering of heads_up lines first. It does not mention cost, latency, or rate limits for what is a fan-out aggregation call, leaving a small gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the user question and then enumerates deliverables in priority order. The embedded list is dense but every clause maps to a real output, so little is wasted; only the wrap-up phrasing (

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 six-parameter composite tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned sections and their caps, which an agent needs to interpret results. Remaining gaps (latency, partial-failure behavior when a sub-source is unavailable) are minor given the read-only, open-world annotation profile.

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 83%, so the schema already documents lat/lng/carrier/radius_km well. The description reinforces that signal is reported per carrier and that nearby-spot results scale with pass status, but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for a well-covered schema.

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?

Names a concrete question the tool answers (

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?

'One call that answers ... this weekend' establishes the scenario and implicitly frames this as a consolidation of the narrower siblings (check_spot, weather, wildfires, road_reports, find_spots), which is useful routing context. It never states when NOT to use it or names a sibling explicitly as the alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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