Seismic Diagnosis & Retrofit Subsidy Guide

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it uses the national directory, explains the support framework, and deliberately avoids quoting figures. This goes beyond the annotation metadata without contradicting it.

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 two focused sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by one meaningful constraint. No wasted words.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with no output schema and two optional, well-described parameters, the description covers the core behavior, the route vs. quote distinction, and municipal variability. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool appropriately.

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 100% schema description coverage means the language and location parameters are already fully explained in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so a baseline 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 uses specific verbs ('Route', 'explain') and names the exact resource ('subsidised/often-free seismic diagnosis... programs via the national directory'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like building_seismic_check by framing it as a subsidy guidance tool rather than a structural assessment tool.

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 defines the tool's role as routing/explaining and explicitly warns it 'never quotes a figure', telling an agent when not to rely on it for specific amounts. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the context makes the intended use case clear.

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