generate_feasibility_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (markdown, citations, token usage, cost), output length, section structure, the mandatory one-of parameter rule, and locale options. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention error behavior or side effects (e.g., cost implications or long runtime).

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then lists return components and constraints. All sentences contribute value; no redundant phrasing. It could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet list of sections) but is acceptably concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the key outputs, typical length, section list, and the input requirement. It lacks information on failure modes, prerequisites like balance, or interaction with other tools, but for a report generator it provides a solid operational picture.

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 explains that exactly one area-reference parameter (geojson, parcel_id, nursery_id, cadastral_number) is required, and enumerates locale values with pipe-separated options. However, it does not describe each parameter individually, leaving some ambiguity about formats (e.g., what geojson should look like).

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a full Phase 4-style feasibility report with Opus 4.7,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_area or translate_brief. It enumerates the report's contents (markdown body, citations, token usage, cost) and section list, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use guidance, but the phrase 'full Phase 4-style feasibility report' implies this is the primary generation tool. The required-parameter constraint is a usage rule, not a tool-selection guideline. Without comparisons to siblings like analyze_area or get_report, the agent may not know when to choose this over a lighter analysis.

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