sentinel_global_heatmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the safety profile: "Read-only public GET" tells the agent this is a non-mutating, unauthenticated call. It also states the sort order and that the alert threshold is included, though it says nothing about pagination or result size.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the question it answers and its access profile. No filler.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, scope, and access model. It is nearly complete; only return shape and result-size behavior are left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so min_risk (0-1, default 0) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering syntax or semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (Sentinel forecast), scope (every watched country), and ordering (7-day risk), plus the alert threshold. It does not name the sibling it differs from, which matters given the crowded set of risk siblings (sentinel_current_risk, get_high_risk_countries, get_risk_forecast).

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 quoted question "which countries are most at risk right now?" implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_high_risk_countries or sentinel_current_risk, which an agent would plausibly confuse with this tool.

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