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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals cost, authorization, credit balance requirement, output JSON structure, and that no invented overall score is produced. This is comprehensive for a complex 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 a single, focused paragraph that front-loads the cost warning and concisely conveys all key aspects without unnecessary words, earning its place.

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 and lack of annotations, the description covers cost, auth, included sub-assessments, output structure, and constraints (no invented score). The presence of an output schema alleviates the need to detail return values further.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal parameter meaning—only that the tool requires lat and lon coordinates for 'a point'. No details on coordinate system, bounds, or units are provided.

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 'master due-diligence report for a point' that wraps multiple specific sub-assessments (hazard, grid, land cover, locality), distinguishing it from sibling tools that provide individual assessments.

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 advises users that the tool is paid (300 credits), recommends using estimate_cost first, and specifies authorization and credit requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or when not to use it.

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