env_hazard_regions

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

The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: it confirms the tool is network-free and deterministic, notes that the aggregated API is shut down, and explains that live data comes from linked tools. This aligns with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and provides additional context.

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 well-structured with separate paragraphs, use_case and important_notes tags, and an Args section. However, it is somewhat verbose; a more concise version could convey the same information.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral notes, parameter details, and return value. The output schema exists, so the brief mention of return value is sufficient. Annotations and output schema together make this complete.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter with examples (e.g., region name, hazard type options). Since schema description coverage is 0% (according to context signals), the description compensates by adding meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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's purpose: providing region-based orientation to natural hazards, pointing users to dedicated live tools and official hazard maps. It uses specific verbs ('verweist') and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing 'env_wildfire_danger' for wildfire danger.

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 states when to use the tool (region-based planning for events, school trips, infrastructure) and what not to use it for (live values, which are handled by linked tools like 'env_wildfire_danger'). It also explains that the tool is network-free and deterministic, providing clear guidance.

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