os_peat_evidence_paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, lowering the bar. The description adds that results carry provenance, confidence, and caveats, which is useful output context, but it does not disclose behavior like aggregation limits, result size implications, or how 'plans' relate to actual evidence data. No contradiction 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?

A single 16-word sentence that front-loads the verb, scope, resource, and the key output promises. Every phrase earns its place with 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?

The combination of annotations and an output schema covers safety and return shape, so the description need not restate those. However, with 7 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain the alternative AOI specification modes (bbox vs landscapeId vs landscapeName) or what includeLayers means, which an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 for the 7 undocumented parameters. 'AOI-scoped' hints that bbox/landscapeId/landscapeName select the area, but no individual parameter meaning, valid combinations, or defaults are explained, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('peat evidence and proxy query plans'), scopes it to an AOI, and lists the distinguishing output attributes (provenance, confidence, caveats). This clearly separates it from the sibling os_peat_layers, though what a 'query plan' concretely returns remains somewhat abstract.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement — an agent can infer this is for AOI-scoped peat evidence planning — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no comparison to os_peat_layers despite the large sibling list of query tools.

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