Flood-risk / anomaly record ($0.05)

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses cost, payment mechanism (x402 on Base), data sources (USGS/NOAA/EPA/CAMS), and output components (band, distance-to-action, anomaly, record_hash). However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., is it read-only?), error behavior, rate limits, or confirmation that data is fetched externally.

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. Front-loads the core function and then adds supplementary information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, the description covers key outputs (thresholds, anomaly, hash) and constraints (one signal+entity, cost, supported signals). It does not detail response format or error states, but provides enough context for an agent to decide if this tool fits the task.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds examples of signal_id and entity values, and mentions 'gauge_catalog' for entity lookup, but does not substantially enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a verifiable flood-risk/anomaly record for a single signal+entity, comparing current data to official thresholds and seasonal anomalies. It specifies supported signal types (hydrology, air, precip) which distinguishes it from broader tools, but does not contrast with sibling tools like gauge_catalog or gauge_preview 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 includes that the tool costs $0.05, implying it's for paid verifiable records, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements are present.

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