landis_derive_pipe_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the input constraint (bbox or GeoJSON polygon) but does not describe output or other behavioral details beyond what the output schema provides. This is adequate given the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose and input specification, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description is concise but lacks explicit guidance on whether both bbox and geometry can be supplied, or what happens if neither is provided. Since the schema marks both as optional, the 'or' phrasing could be ambiguous. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the input ambiguity is a gap.

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 the description must compensate. It clarifies that the geometry parameter should be a GeoJSON Polygon or MultiPolygon, adding meaning beyond the generic 'object' type. However, it does not explain bbox coordinate order or units, leaving some ambiguity. Partial compensation.

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 verb 'Screen' with a specific resource 'corrosion and shrink-swell pipe risk' and specifies the accepted input types (bbox or GeoJSON Polygon/MultiPolygon). It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which mention pipe risk, so an agent can immediately identify its purpose.

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 gives clear context: it screens pipe risk for a bbox or polygon, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but since no sibling covers the same function, the context is sufficient.

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