fws-wetlands-proximity-screener

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'reads live from the official government source,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose error handling, billing behavior, or potential limitations such as rate limits or data freshness. No contradiction exists, but the transparency is limited to a single trait, missing other important aspects.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key output details. It includes a URL for additional information without bloat. Every sentence contributes value, making it well-structured and efficient.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description clearly enumerates the key outputs (presence, codes, types, acreage, flag) and notes the live data source. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and its operational nature. Minor gaps like request limits or cost are covered in the parameter schema, so the description is fairly 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The main description does not add further parameter-level meaning, such as format or constraints. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no additional context, so 3 is justified.

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 as a USFWS Wetlands Proximity Screener for Section 404 site risk, listing specific outputs like wetland presence, Cowardin codes, types, acreage, and a screening flag. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on wetlands via the NWI, which is a unique domain among the listed environmental screeners.

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 frames it as a due-diligence tool for site selection, indicating when it should be used. It implies usage for wetland-related screening but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternative tools. The reference to live data from an official source adds credibility and a reason for preference. No direct comparison to siblings is provided, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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