radiation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add the source (crowd-sourced Safecast) and recency ('Recent'), but says nothing about geographic coverage, data lag/freshness, crowd-source reliability caveats, or whether results are capped — all material for an incident-detection tool with no lat/lon parameter.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere rather than being purely a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits the parameter semantics, geographic/temporal scope, and sibling differentiation. For a data-feed tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, that is not enough to call it correctly and confidently.

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 single parameter 'detail' has 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description never mentions it at all. An agent cannot tell what values 'detail' accepts or how it changes the response, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (Safecast crowd radiation measurements) and states the payload (value + unit + location), framed as an incident-detection layer. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related deepstate_radiation_stations, so an agent must guess which radiation source to call.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. 'A nuclear-incident detection layer' only obliquely implies a use case, leaving the choice between radiation and deepstate_radiation_stations unexplained.

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