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 adds no behavioral context beyond the structured fields — nothing about defaults, projection semantics, or how rise_m/year/scenario interact — so it contributes little on top of the annotations.

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 with no filler, and the resource plus optional filters are stated immediately. It is efficient, though the awkward 'at a rise' phrasing costs a little clarity.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains that results are scenario-based projections or how scenario, year, rise_m, and storm_surge combine. The schema param descriptions cover much of that gap, so it is adequate but leaves the overall scenario model implicit.

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 88%, so the schema already documents area, lang, year, limit, rise_m, scenario, and storm_surge. The description's 'of one kind or in one planning area' merely restates the kind and area filters and adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g. year vs rise_m). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific resource — named public places (hawker centres, schools, places of worship) — and the condition that reaches them (sea-level rise), so an agent can infer it lists at-risk places rather than raw flood data. The phrasing 'reached by the sea at a rise' is slightly oblique and no sibling (e.g. area_impact, most_affected_areas) is referenced, so it is clear but not differentiated.

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?

The clause 'optionally of one kind or in one planning area' is a filter hint, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to pick this over area_impact, flood_impact, or most_affected_areas, which occupy adjacent territory, and no prerequisites are given.

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