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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that identical coordinates are merged into coordinate+count pairs, sorted descending by count, that coordinates are highly duplicated and must NOT be read as per-case precise locations, and that month-level granularity is impossible. These are exactly the interpretation caveats an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 core purpose first, then caveats, then input provenance. Dense semicolon-chained clauses with no filler, though the run-on structure makes the caveats slightly harder to scan than separate sentences would.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape (coordinate plus count, sorted by count descending) and the aggregation caveat. For a 3-required-parameter read tool with a hard upstream dependency, nothing essential is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the 'not hotspotKeyid' disambiguation and the ROC-year range; the description largely restates the locationKeyid/kind provenance. The added value is limited to reinforcing the full-year-only constraint rather than explaining parameter formats.

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 verb and resource (accident locations at a single intersection or road segment) plus the scope limit (one year, one location). The scope is narrow enough that an agent can tell it apart from get_location_history or get_school_accident_points without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow — locationKeyid and kind must come from get_cbi_hotspots — and an explicit constraint that only full-year queries are possible. It does not name a sibling to avoid, but the input dependency effectively routes the agent to the right upstream tool.

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