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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is a link (a URL artifact) rather than raw data, but it does not disclose the link's form, whether it is shareable, or how the mutually exclusive parameters interact at runtime.

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 tight sentence with no waste, front-loading what the tool returns. It is efficient, though the parenthetical could be marginally clearer about the alternative-input form.

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 link-generating tool, the key missing context is what the returned link looks like and how it should be relayed to a user, which matters since there is no output schema. The description is adequate but leaves the return artifact underspecified.

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 the schema already documents language, year, rise_m, scenario, and storm_surge. The description only paraphrases the rise-versus-year-and-scenario choice that the schema's 'instead of rise_m' note already conveys, adding no new semantics beyond structured fields.

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 description names a concrete output (a link) and the resource state it encodes (the Rising Shores map with sea raised), so an agent can tell it produces a shareable map URL rather than performing analysis. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with analysis siblings like sea_level or flood_impact, leaving differentiation implicit.

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 the many siblings (sea_level, area_impact, flood_impact, etc.). The agent must infer that this is for generating a link rather than retrieving data. No exclusions or preferred conditions are given.

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