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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that reference entries include public documentation and verification dates, which tells the agent what kind of authoritative content to expect.

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, each with a distinct job: state what the reference covers, give usage guidance, and describe entry contents. It is front-loaded and has no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, and annotations cover safety and idempotency, so the description does not need to explain return values. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter reference tool, though it could say a bit more about the remaining topic values.

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 100%, so the enum and default are already documented. The description still adds value by mapping the enum topics to human-readable concepts and by explaining when to choose 'presets' versus 'coverage', going beyond the bare schema description 'Reference topic'.

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 clearly identifies a reference-lookup tool and enumerates the domains it covers: presets, communities, units, source coverage, missing values, wind corrections, and dataframe availability. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the phrase 'before a producing call' distinguishes it from the data-producing calls in the sibling list.

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 concrete usage guidance for two key topics: use 'presets' before a producing call, and use 'coverage' when revising a date window. It does not explain when to choose the remaining topics, but the guidance is clear enough to route the main workflows.

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