ground_stability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements, no rate limits, no spatial resolution, and no explanation of what 'verified observations' means operationally or what the response contains. It hints at a provenance/quality dimension without specifying it.

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 single fragment is front-loaded and free of waste, which is good. But for a three-parameter geospatial tool it is under-specified rather than concise, leaving no room for the usage or parameter detail an agent needs.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine the spatial semantics of radius_km, the return shape, or when this tool beats its siblings.

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 0% and the description never mentions lat, lon, or radius_km. The agent gets no indication of coordinate convention, units for radius_km (km is implied only by the name), or its default behavior. With three undocumented parameters and no compensating text, this is a clear 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: 'Subsidence / void / karst / fault risk from verified observations.' This is concrete and distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like seismic_hazard and water_availability. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that the tool assesses/queries this risk rather than reporting on it.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the sibling list that seismic_hazard covers earthquakes and this covers subsidence/karst, but nothing in the description states that routing.

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