Malaysia Flood Warnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully structured. The description usefully adds what the readings contain (thresholds and trend), but says nothing about freshness, return volume relative to limit, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, source, payload fields, and filtering capability with no filler. Nothing redundant or misplaced.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile; the description covers source and content. The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance against sibling warning/forecast tools.

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 limit, state and district are already documented with examples and bounds in the schema. The description only restates that filtering by state and district is possible, adding no format or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema. 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 verb (Get) and resource (Malaysian river water-level and rainfall station readings) with the JPS source, and enumerates the payload (alert/warning/danger thresholds and trend). It is clearly a flood-monitoring read tool, though it never names the sibling it differs from (e.g. malaysiagov.weather.get_warnings), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. The mention that results are 'filterable by state and district' hints at scoping but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over malaysiagov.weather.get_warnings or the earthquake tool. Guidance is essentially absent.

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