cyclone_estimate_commune_exposure

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it is a helper and explicitly states it is not an official impact model, which is a useful caveat. Yet it does not mention whether it is read-only, what the output format is (no output schema), or any potential limitations like asynchronous behavior or rate limits. The limitation statement adds some transparency but leaves 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 two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second clarifies its scope and limitation. It is front-loaded, contains zero filler, and every word adds value. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool has 5 well-documented parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides a sufficient overview: it names the geographic scope, the distance-based nature, and the non-official caveat. It could add a note about the return format, but for a simple helper tool with clear schema, it is adequately complete, especially referencing the territory filter implicitly through 'Réunion or Mayotte.'

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 baseline is 3. The description says 'closest to a cyclone position,' which reinforces that lat/lon are cyclone coordinates, but the schema already describes these parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's existing documentation, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 function: 'Estimate which Réunion or Mayotte communes are geographically closest to a cyclone position.' It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('communes'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly labeling it as a 'distance helper' rather than an official impact model, setting it apart from cyclone_list_communes and alert-related tools.

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 provides implicit usage context by defining its scope as a quick distance-based estimation and cautions that it is 'not an official impact model,' which tells the agent when not to rely on it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this tool over others, though the sibling list suggests cyclone_list_communes as a contrast.

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