analyze_reservoir_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. It states the tool is zero-config and requires no credentials, which is useful, but does not disclose potential rate limits, data sources beyond the reference, or any limitations (e.g., reliance on cloud-free imagery). The description mentions the reference but not what happens with no data available.

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?

The description is structured with a clear intro, arguments, returns, and references. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and zero-config note. Every sentence adds value: the 'Returns' section informs the user of the output fields, and the reference adds scientific credibility. No fluff.

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 output schema is present, so the description doesn't need to explain return format in detail, but it does anyway. It covers all parameters, zero-config requirements, and provides the data source reference. For a moderately complex tool with 4 parameters, this is complete. Missing details like coordinate range are minor given the schema's existence.

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 explain parameters. It does explain bbox, historical_year, recent_year, and format in simple terms, but it doesn't specify allowed values for format (summary, geojson, csv) or coordinate range for bbox. It adds meaning over the schema, which is good, but could be more explicit.

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 tool analyzes reservoir surface water shrinkage and drought dynamics using multi-temporal optical imagery, and names the specific EC JRC Global Surface Water parameters. It distinguishes itself from related tools like detect_water_sar by focusing on multi-year drought analysis rather than single-time water detection.

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 mentions 'Zero-config' and 'No credentials required', which implies ease of use without alternatives. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but given the tool's unique focus on drought dynamics, the context is clear. It could name a sibling alternative but is not misleading.

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