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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: public MCP investigations are ephemeral previews and are not written into the shared investigation archive, which materially affects how a caller treats the result. It still omits cost/latency and whether results are reproducible, so not a 5.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It loses a point because the more decision-relevant persistence caveat is buried after an undefined term, and neither "FAIE" nor "bounded" is unpacked.

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 8-parameter investigation tool with no output schema and 13% schema coverage needs far more explanation: what a returned investigation looks like, how long it runs, how the filters interact, and how it relates to the sibling tools. The description covers only ephemerality, leaving the caller under-informed.

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 13% — only "question" is documented — and the description explains none of the other seven parameters (crop, asset_types, region_keys, horizon_days, water_source, thesis_assumptions, include_weak_evidence). With low coverage, the description is required to compensate and instead says nothing about inputs.

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 verb+resource is present ("Run a bounded FAIE evidence investigation"), and the title supplies the domain (agriculture, land, water, production, resilience). However, "FAIE" and "bounded" are unexplained jargon, and the description never distinguishes this tool from siblings like compare_faie_candidates or get_faie_signal_snapshot. Purpose is inferable but not crisp.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus compare_faie_candidates, get_faie_signal_snapshot, or get_faie_health, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual note concerns persistence, not selection.

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