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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 100 km approximation and Australian scope, but not authentication requirements, read-only behavior, rate limits, or return/pagination behavior; 'PRO.' is cryptic.

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 very short and wastes little space, with the core resource and radius stated immediately. The only questionable element is the unexplained leading 'PRO.', which does not clearly earn its place.

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 one-required-parameter proximity lookup, the description covers the core scope, and the schema carries the access_token detail. It still leaves output shape and authentication requirements implicit, which is a meaningful gap given there is no output schema and no annotations.

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 describes access_token but leaves postcode undocumented. The description adds useful meaning by identifying the postcode as Australian and tying it to a 100 km proximity radius, though it does not specify postcode format or further explain the token.

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 (incidents) and scope (roughly near an Australian postcode within 100 km), so the agent can tell this is a proximity search. It does not explicitly differentiate from incidents_all or major_incidents, and the leading 'PRO.' is unexplained, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies a use case: find incidents near a postcode. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this instead of incidents_all or major_incidents, and it does not mention prerequisites such as the subscriber token.

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