parametric_crop_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds context about the methodology (NDVI satellite index, NDMA drought history) and clarifies the demo nature, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by methodology and a critical limitation. Front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 covers purpose, methodology, and the demo limitation. With an output schema present, it does not need to describe return values. It could mention what happens with invalid inputs or missing seasons, but overall it is adequate for a non-trivial tool.

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 each parameter having a description. The tool description provides context about Kenya farming and satellite indexes but does not elaborate on the individual parameters beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Calculate' and the resource 'parametric crop insurance risk' for a specific user (Kenya smallholder farmer). It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with community pools, microinsurance comparisons, products, NHIF, and premium estimates.

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 explicitly notes that the tool uses DEMO data and actual payouts require enrollment, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'premium_estimate' or 'community_pool_calculator', though the purpose is sufficiently distinct.

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