debris_flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool's coverage limitation (only recently burned areas), the typical not_in_zone result for unburned areas, and the important caveat that not_in_zone does not imply no risk. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the tool's real-world behavior and interpretation of results.

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 zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second delivers the critical caveat about not_in_zone. Every word earns its place, and the most important behavioral caveat is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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?

The tool has a single parameter fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the only missing context: coverage limitations and interpretation of the not_in_zone result. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its response.

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%, so the schema already documents the location parameter thoroughly, including the address/lat-lon alternatives and the note that coordinates skip geocoding. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 the tool's purpose: USGS post-fire debris-flow assessments at a location. It specifies the resource (USGS post-fire debris-flow assessments), the action (returns assessments at a location), and distinguishes it from generic hazard tools by noting the USGS only assesses recently burned areas. This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from siblings like flood_zone or seismic_zones.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and what to expect: it only covers recently burned areas, and it gives a concrete example (Glendale) where it will usually return not_in_zone. It also warns that a not_in_zone result does not mean no debris-flow risk, which is critical for correct interpretation. This is explicit usage guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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