Ask Mireye

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return format (answer plus per-citation provenance with source, URL, fetched_at, confidence) and confirms the tool uses authoritative federal data. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: the first explains what the tool does and what it returns, the second provides usage guidance with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is well front-loaded.

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 (mentioned in context), the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and return structure. It covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the key output elements. No gaps.

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%, and the schema provides clear descriptions for lat, lng, and question (including bounds and length constraints). The tool description adds that the question is 'natural-language' but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 answers natural-language questions about US coordinates with citations. Examples like 'is this in a flood zone?' help convey the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool mireye_fetch, so clarity is high but not maximal.

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 advises when to use the tool ('when the caller has a specific question about a place') with concrete examples. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., mireye_fetch for raw data), but the guidance is still actionable.

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