search_flood_areas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or error behavior (e.g., no results handling). The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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 a single concise sentence of 10 words, front-loading the key information. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for lacking depth.

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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose but omits usage guidance and behavioral details. Given the availability of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds only that the search is 'by name or river' for the query parameter, but does not clarify the format or that the query can be either. The limit parameter is entirely unmentioned. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Environment Agency flood monitoring areas', specifying search by name or river. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flood_warnings and search_constituencies, which target different resources.

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 implies usage for searching flood areas by name/river, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_flood_warnings or other search tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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