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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the data source (Malaria Atlas Project GeoServer WFS), the source URL, and that no authentication is required. No contradictions found.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states what the tool does, the fields returned, and the filters; the second sentence adds source and auth context. Every clause earns 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?

The description fully covers what the tool returns, optional filters, data source, and authentication requirements. With an output schema presenttons, a complete picture is formed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing further details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions country and species filters, which are already documented in the schema, but adds no further detail about the limit parameter or parameter interaction beyond what the schema provides.

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 searches Anopheles mosquito vector-occurrence records celebrating what fields are returned (collection site, survey period, species identification, sampling method) and optional filters. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling malaria-atlas tools like case_estimates or parasite_rate_survey.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: searchers for Anopheles occurrence records with optional country or species filtering. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state exclusion criteria, but the scope is unambiguous enough for selection.

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