agri_drought

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists weather indicators used but fails to describe computational cost, data sources, response format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an assessment tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is concise, though it could incorporate additional useful information without sacrificing brevity.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., drought index, categorical risk). Given the tool's analytical nature, the description should clarify output format, data timeliness, or interpretation. It falls short.

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% with well-defined lat/lng. The description adds context about weather indicators used but does not elaborate on parameter ranges, units, or how they affect results. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 'Drought assessment at a location using weather indicators', specifying the verb (assess), resource (drought), and key inputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agri_crop_health by focusing narrowly on drought.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agri_famine_risk or agri_crop_health. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or excluded use cases.

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