List flood observation layers or observations

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent profile. The description adds behavioral context the annotations cannot: an 'unknown' datum is not scored, and 'problems' are validation failures that are reported but never fixed. These are non-obvious semantic traits beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the mode split before the field inventory. The second sentence is dense with a nested parenthetical, but each listed field and clarification earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return fields need not be enumerated, yet the description's semantic annotations (datum scoring rule, never-fixed problems, fid as the mutation key) add genuinely useful context. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by tying each layer_id state to a distinct result shape and by flagging that the returned `fid` is the key required by update_observation/delete_observation, giving the parameter operational meaning beyond its schema text.

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 verb+resource and immediately splits the two modes (project's layers vs. one layer's observations) governed by layer_id. It also names the downstream siblings (update_observation / delete_observation) whose key is the returned fid, so an agent can distinguish this from those tools without opening a schema.

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?

It clearly explains the two invocation modes and which parameter selects each ('Without layer_id: ... With layer_id: ...'), giving an agent enough to choose correctly. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming the create/add observation siblings as alternatives, so it lands just below the top.

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