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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explicitly stating that results 'may be wrong,' that unavailable evidence is named rather than inferred, and that a human remains the final authority. This is significant, honest behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns results' statement, although it does not discuss potential side effects or data freshness beyond what the schema already covers.

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 three tight sentences: purpose, return contents, and a caveat. Each sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

The description gives a solid overview of outputs and epistemic limitations, which is especially important given there is no output schema. It does not describe the time-window constraint, but the schema already covers that. It also does not explain 'Senlay Core,' though that is likely domain terminology rather than a required operational detail. Overall, it is complete enough for safe invocation and expectation-setting.

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?

The schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage. The tool description adds general context by framing the operation as 'an activity at a coordinate,' which ties lat/lng/domain together, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 purpose: decision support for an activity at a coordinate, and enumerates what it returns (thresholds, exceeded conditions, source divergence, unknowns, uncertainty). This clearly identifies the tool as an assessment rather than a data-listing or sensing tool, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings.

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 implies the tool is used when an agent needs decision support for an activity at a specific coordinate, and the return list suggests suitability for operational assessments. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_domains or sense_location, nor any exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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