flood_risk_outlook

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world access; the description adds real value by explaining the live-forecast pull, the scoring method against station history, the risk-level vocabulary, and the explicit caveat that this is screening not an official warning. The live-fetch wording also explains the non-idempotentHint annotation. It omits any note on auth, rate limits or data staleness.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded, and the following lines add methodology, the return vocabulary and a caveat without filler. Slightly longer than strictly required, but each sentence contributes distinct 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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be spelled out, yet the description still enumerates the risk levels, which helps interpretation. Annotations cover the safety profile. The only notable omission is how to obtain a valid station identifier, given an undocumented string parameter.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters. It usefully pins the 'days' range to 1-16, which the bare integer schema does not, and anchors 'station' to 'at a station'. However it does not say what identifier format a station takes or point to list_stations as the source of valid values, leaving a real gap.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb+resource ('flash-flood screening outlook'), the scope (next 1-16 days) and the unit of analysis (at a station). It is clearly separable from siblings like get_daily_weather, rain_thresholds and climate_trend without opening either schema.

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?

It states the tool's role ('a screening signal, not an official warning'), which implies when output should and shouldn't be acted on, but it never contrasts itself with alternatives such as get_daily_weather or rain_thresholds. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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