flag_infra_anomalies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that outputs are heuristic indicators (not accusations) and explains each rule's behavior, including caveats (e.g., the high_cost_no_published_progress rule is a transparency flag, not a progress check). It sets appropriate expectations.

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 purpose, followed by a clear list of rules. It is well-structured and mostly concise, though slightly verbose with disclaimers. Nearly every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple heuristic rules) and available structured fields (input schema with 100% coverage, output schema present), the description explains each rule sufficiently. It covers inputs, behavior, and disclaimers, achieving good completeness for its purpose.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds minor value by tying min_cost_php to the heuristic rule. While sufficient, it does not significantly enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: to flag PhilGEPS infrastructure projects warranting further review by cross-referencing earthquake and typhoon footprints. It specifies the action (flag anomalies) and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that get, search, or summarize data.

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 explains the heuristic rules and their implications but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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