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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the data source (Malaria Atlas Project GeoServer WFS) and the explicit note that no auth is required. It also describes what fields are returned, giving the agent a clear expectation of the result shape.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, resource, returned fields, and optional filter; the second sentence provides source and auth details. Every sentence earns its place and the structure aids quick scanning.

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 output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and the schema documents all parameters, the description is largely complete. It adds the data source, auth requirement, and returned fields. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit sibling differentiation, but this does not leave the agent without enough to call the tool correctly.

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 all three parameters (limit, country, species) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter semantics; it merely restates the optional country filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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') and resource ('point-level malaria parasite-rate survey records'), lists the key fields returned (site location, survey period, number examined, positive count, parasite rate), and mentions the species filter (pf/pv). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling malaria-atlas tools (entomology vector occurrence, case estimates, country list) by focusing on parasite rate surveys.

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 clearly implies its use case (searching parasite-rate survey records) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like entomology.vector_occurrence or epidemiology.case_estimates. There is no when-not guidance or naming of alternatives, so the agent must infer the right selection from the domain context.

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