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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format (JSON with specific fields) and notes it uses existing free primitives. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the lack of destructive hints in the description is acceptable for a scouting tool.

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 concise, with only three sentences that front-load the key purpose and output. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (combining multiple data sources) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and limitations. It could mention coordinate system details but overall is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the parameter names (lat, lon). Given the low coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain coordinate system, bounds, or expected formats.

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 clearly states it is a 'one-call solar/wind site-scouting indicator' combining terrain, land cover, climate averages, and grid proximity, distinguishing it from sibling tools like assess_grid_exposure, classify_land_cover, get_climate_history, and get_terrain_profile.

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?

It provides context by noting 'no key needed' and cautions that it is 'Not a substitute for a professional feasibility study,' implying usage for quick scouting rather than definitive analysis. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools for when to choose this composite tool over individual ones.

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