get_water_risk

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: 'Free tier', data sources ('Joined to USGS water-stress + US Drought Monitor'), and return object fields. No contradiction.

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?

Description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place: use case, example, parameter rules, return info, data sources, restrictions. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return object fields (water_stress_score, drought_category, etc.) and data sources. Covers purpose, parameters, restrictions, and alternatives completely.

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%. The description adds meaning beyond schema by clarifying parameter constraints ('ONE of lat+lon, state, or county'), precision ranking, and example values. Useful guidance.

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 is for scoring a US site for cooling-water sustainability, a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming get_infrastructure and analyze_site as alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states 'when scoring a US site for cooling-water sustainability' and 'Do NOT use for nearby physical infrastructure... or a combined multi-factor site verdict...' with named alternatives. Provides example query.

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