flood

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only the data source ('via Laenderhochwasserportal') but no additional behavioral context such as update frequency, latency, or authorization requirements. Given the annotations, the contribution is minimal.

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 a single sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it omits crucial details like parameter meaning, return format, and usage context, so the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what warning levels are returned, how to interpret them, or how to specify the city via 'slug'. Many questions remain for effective invocation.

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 single parameter 'slug' is left unexplained in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description. The description mentions 'einer Stadt' (a city) but does not clarify that 'slug' is a city identifier. An AI agent has insufficient information to determine what value to provide.

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 indicates the tool returns flood warning levels for a city via a specific portal (Laenderhochwasserportal). The verb is implied (retrieve) and the resource is specific. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'water_level', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., water_level). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions where this tool is appropriate or not.

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