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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context about no authentication required and the Open Government Licence, which is beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on pagination or potential empty-result behavior, but that is minor given the safety coverage from annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then states return fields and data source/licence. Each element earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

With an output schema present and a well-covered input schema, the description is almost complete. It mentions the return fields, data source, and licensing. Missing details like the optional omission of lat/lng for full coverage are present in the schema, so nothing essential is absent. The description adequately complements the structured metadata.

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 has 100% coverage of parameters, each with clear descriptions (e.g., lat/lng must be supplied together, limits, radius defaults). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 verb (search), a resource (National Landslide Database), and a clear scope (UK landslide events near a point). It also names the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like earthquake_search and geology tools without needing to state them explicitly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bgs-ogcapi.hazards.earthquake_search or bgs-ogcapi.geology.bedrock. It does not mention exclusions, nor does it clarify the relationship to other BGS search tools. The 'near a point' phrasing is implied by the name, but there is no explicit usage guidance.

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