water_risk

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles transparency. It states the output format (grid cells with scores), the score scale 1-5, the spatial resolution (0.1°), the max bounding box (50°×50°), and that no credits are consumed. This sufficiently describes the behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: a single introductory sentence, then breakdown of metrics, scores, source, and argument descriptions. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description still explains the return structure (JSON array of grid cells with specific fields). It covers purpose, parameters, constraints, output format, and data source, making it complete for a data retrieval tool.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It defines each parameter (lat_min, lat_max, lon_min, lon_max) with brief descriptions like 'Southern boundary latitude' and adds a max bounding box constraint, which adds value beyond the schema's type-only info.

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 it retrieves WRI Aqueduct 4.0 water risk scores (water stress, depletion, flood, drought) for a bounding box region. It distinguishes from sibling tools like geocode or query_climate by specifying the unique data source and metrics.

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 a specific use case (CSRD ESRS portfolio screening) and explicitly mentions the regulation sections, which guides when to use. However, it does not exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool versus siblings like query_climate.

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