Flag infrastructure spending anomalies

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

Annotations only state read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial transparency: it explicitly says outputs are 'heuristic anomaly indicators, not accusations', disclaims that patterns may have legitimate explanations, and details each rule's exact behavior, including the caveat that the high-cost rule is a transparency flag, not a project-specific progress finding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a clearly labeled bullet list for the three heuristic rules. Each bullet conveys necessary detail without padding, and the disclaimer about heuristic nature is useful context, making the length justified.

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?

The tool has three parameters, three rules, and an output schema (so return values are already defined). The description fully explains the cross-referencing logic, the meaning of each rule, and the behavioral caveats, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining min_cost_php's role as 'the threshold for the high_cost_no_published_progress rule', linking it to a specific heuristic. It also clarifies the semantics of the high-cost rule, which is beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Flag PhilGEPS infrastructure projects that warrant further review by cross-referencing PHIVOLCS earthquakes and PAGASA typhoon footprints.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search/summarize tools by its analytical/heuristic purpose and names the exact data sources involved.

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 conveys clear usage context: it flags projects for further review based on hazard overlap and cost/progress signals. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the detailed heuristic rules effectively imply the intended use case and scope.

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