dam_inundation

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

Even with strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds significant behavioral detail: multiple features per dam are all returned, HazardCl measures consequence rather than likelihood, federal dams are omitted, and the output is not an evacuation map. This goes well beyond what annotations or the schema convey.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose; subsequent sentences each add meaningful caveats about multiple features, HazardCl interpretation, federal exclusions, and non-evacuation use. No sentence is wasted.

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 and annotations, the description covers all essential behavioral context: what the tool reports, how to interpret HazardCl, what is excluded, and what the results are not. The location input is fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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%, and the Location schema already explains address vs. coordinates and the geocoding shortcut. The tool description only says 'at a location' and does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the resource as DWR dam inundation areas and explains the concept: 'where water could flood if a dam failed.' It distinguishes itself from more general flood/hazard tools by focusing on dam failure, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-driven action such as 'returns' or 'lists,' so it stops just short of top marks.

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 gives useful context: it covers dam-failure inundation, excludes federally owned dams, and warns 'Not an evacuation map.' However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus siblings like flood_zone or hazards_at_location, nor does it name alternatives or give clear when-not-to-use conditions beyond the evacuation caveat.

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