water_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — free returns a public groundwater trend while paid adds a derived, explicitly non-locating atlas indication — but leaves uncovered precision, whether results are modeled vs measured, latency/rate limits, and what depth_m changes about the response.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The closing phrase 'derived (non-locating) atlas indication' is jargon-heavy and slightly opaque, which costs a point on clarity.

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?

For a three-parameter geospatial query with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description should specify depth_m semantics, units, and expected return shape. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It implies coordinates via 'at a point' and hints at groundwater via 'trend', but never explains depth_m, its units, or its effect on results, leaving the least obvious parameter entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource (replenishable-water availability) and scope (at a point), so an agent knows it is a point-based water lookup. It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, resource_indication, and the free/paid clause describes tiers rather than the tool's core function.

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 free-vs-paid breakdown hints at what an agent will receive under different access tiers, which is useful routing context, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no comparison to resource_indication, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

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