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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful honesty caveat ('roughly when each scenario gets there'), but says nothing about data sourcing, model assumptions, or geographic limits beyond the Singapore framing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the input domain first and then the output, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the return value, and it does so adequately (threshold sea-level plus per-scenario timing). Some methodological caveats are missing, but an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool.

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%: the query format and the lang enum are both fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific input (Singapore postal code or place name) and a concrete output (sea-level rise at which the location first connects to the sea, plus rough timing per scenario). The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like flood_impact or when_does_it_flood.

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?

Usage is implied by the input constraint ('For a Singapore postal code or place name'), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative among the many flood/sea-level siblings.

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