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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive computation. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: missing inputs are returned rather than guessed. It still omits output shape, units, and error semantics, but the added missing-input behavior is meaningful.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the key caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a complex tool with nine parameters, nested monthly climate objects, and no output schema. The description gives only purpose and one behavioral note, leaving critical invocation details such as units, expected monthly data format, optional parameter effects, and output shape unexplained.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the nine parameters, their units, or how they interact. The phrase '12-month' hints at the monthly arrays already enforced by the schema, but no parameter meaning is added 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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Run Abyar 12-month irrigation water-need logic.' That is specific enough for an agent to understand this is a computation tool for monthly irrigation demand. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings such as run_calculator or get_calculator_spec.

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 states no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. It only describes a behavioral trait about missing inputs, leaving the agent to infer whether this should be used instead of run_calculator or other calculation tools.

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