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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description need not repeat that. Beyond annotations, it only adds the word 'preliminary', giving no context about assumptions, limitations, or what kind of capacity verdict is returned.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and has no wasted words. Its brevity crosses into under-specification, though, since it conveys almost no actionable detail.

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 four undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and a domain-specific engineering calculation, the description is far too thin to call the tool correctly. An agent would not know what a 'screen' returns or how the four flow/time inputs relate.

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 0%, so the description must explain the four required numeric inputs. It says nothing about peak_daily_m3, irrigation_hours, source_flow_m3h, or hours_available, leaving an agent to guess at their units and interaction from bare schema constraints.

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 sentence names a specific domain object (irrigation network capacity) and an action (preliminary screen), so an agent can infer a quick feasibility check. However, the verb 'screen' is vague and it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like abiyar_water_need, abiyar_pond_design, or run_calculator.

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 guidance on when to use this tool rather than abiyar_water_need, abiyar_pond_design, or run_calculator. The word 'preliminary' weakly implies early-stage use, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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