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

With no annotations, the description covers all behavioral aspects: cost, max candidates, internal call to assess_property_hazard, ranking metric (PGA), included context fields, authentication requirement, and return JSON structure. No contradictions.

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 comprehensive but slightly verbose. It front-loads critical info (cost, purpose) and uses parentheses for clarifications. Could trim minor details (e.g., project stance) but overall efficient.

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 (bulk operation, cost, internal dependency), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, input format, cost model, ranking methodology, output fields, and prerequisites. With an output schema presumed available, no gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning by specifying candidates as [lon, lat] pairs and top_n defaulting to 5. While it doesn't detail array constraints or coordinate range, it provides sufficient guidance for usage. The output schema mention partly compensates.

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 the tool is a bulk seismic-risk screener that ranks candidates by lowest real seismic risk. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is not a full multi-hazard ranking and aligns with the project's no-invented-composite-score stance.

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?

Explicitly advises to use estimate_cost first for quoting. It clarifies when to use (for seismic risk ranking) and when not (not a full multi-hazard ranking). Also mentions max candidates per call and cost structure.

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