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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds useful output context by listing returned fields, but does not disclose accuracy limits, rate limits, or how match_confidence should be interpreted.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences: the first states the lookup purpose and data source, the second lists the returned values. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the data source and enumerates key return fields. It falls short only by omitting usage guidance and an explanation of match_confidence or radius behavior.

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 both the address and radius_m parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: looking up the most likely registered well for a Swedish address via SGU's well archive. It is clear and specific, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, though none of the siblings appear to concern wells.

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 description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for selecting this tool over another.

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