get_water_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds behavioral detail: returns stress score (0-100), drought category (D0-D4), 12-month outlook, and cooling-water sustainability assessment. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three efficient sentences that front-load purpose, include usage examples, and quickly distinguish from siblings. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter hints, and sibling differentiation. It is complete for the tool's complexity level.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains parameters conceptually (state, lat/lon) and provides an example ('state=AZ'), but does not fully describe format or constraints for all parameters. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves USGS water stress index and Drought Monitor risk for US locations via state, county, or lat/lon. It specifically distinguishes from sibling tool 'analyze_site' by noting it covers only one factor (water), making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage contexts: by state, county, or lat/lon. Includes example calls ('get_water_risk state=AZ' and lat/lon form). Clearly states when not to use and points to alternative 'analyze_site' for multi-factor evaluation.

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