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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that it is read-only (returns data), uses free primitives, requires no key, and returns specific fields including 'physically_unsuitable'. This provides good behavioral context for an assessment 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, effective sentence that front-loads the purpose and key features, followed by the return format. No superfluous words.

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?

For a simple tool with no annotations and an output schema mentioned in the description, the description covers purpose, inputs (implicitly), and outputs. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention coordinate limits or error responses.

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 description does not explain the 'lon' and 'lat' parameters beyond their schema definitions. With 0% schema coverage, the description should add meaning (e.g., coordinate format, bounds), but it omits this, relying on the parameter names alone.

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 specifies the verb 'assess' and the resource 'telecom site' with specific factors (grid proximity, terrain elevation, land cover). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'assess_ev_charging_site' or 'assess_renewable_site' by targeting cell tower scouting.

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 usage for quick one-call assessments and notes no key is needed, but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'assess_grid_exposure' or when not to use it (e.g., for detailed feasibility studies).

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