agri_locust

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data freshness, or output format. The agent is left without knowing what happens when invoking the 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?

Very concise at one sentence, but it is a noun phrase lacking structure or front-loading of key information. The brevity sacrifices clarity on tool behavior.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It does not specify what the output looks like (e.g., text alerts, coordinates), leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool. Incomplete for a tool that could benefit from more context.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so the description is not required to document parameters. However, it does not explicitly state that no parameters are needed, missing an opportunity to clarify usage. Baseline for no-param tool is 4, but the omission reduces it.

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 identifies the tool as providing desert locust swarm tracking and alerts from FAO Locust Watch. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., agri_crop_health) by specifying a unique resource and source, though it lacks a strong action verb.

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 (e.g., other agri_ tools). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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