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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is the semantic disclosure that the returned rank measures evidence readiness only and is not a suitability or investment recommendation. Useful framing, but it says nothing about how weak evidence is treated, whether output is deterministic, or limits beyond the 2-8 count.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, with the operation and its scope front-loaded and the output caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns 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 complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description omits what the response looks like, how the top-level fields relate to per-candidate overrides, and the effect of include_weak_evidence. Only the candidate-count bound is conveyed.

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 0% across 8 parameters, and the description only echoes the candidates count constraint (2-8) that the schema already enforces. question, crop, asset_types, horizon_days, water_source, thesis_assumptions, and especially include_weak_evidence are left entirely unexplained, including whether candidate-level fields override top-level ones.

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 ('run the same bounded FAIE evidence rubric'), the resource (candidate regions/sites), and the scope constraint (2 to 8). It is readily distinguishable from the sibling investigation tools, which operate on a single subject rather than ranking multiple candidates.

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?

Implies the use case clearly: comparing several candidates under one rubric, and it adds a crucial caveat that the ranking is evidence-readiness, not suitability or an investment call. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over explore-style siblings (e.g., investigate_faie_evidence for a single site), so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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