get_aoi_risk_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so admirably. It discloses the output structure (GeoJSON FeatureCollection with rating_value and rating_class), the rating logic (dominant major soil component), special handling for Order 5 map units ('Not rated'), and error behavior for unsupported concerns. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured. It leads with the primary purpose, then provides essential details about output and limitations in a dense, readable format. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 (output schema exists, 3 params, 9 siblings), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the output format, data content, rating logic, edge cases, and error conditions. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be elaborated further, and the description fills the remaining context thoroughly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'concern' (the concern to rate) and suggests 'wkt' is the AOI geometry via 'clipped to the AOI', but it never explicitly documents the parameters, and 'landunit' is completely unaddressed. The description adds some semantic value but leaves significant gaps.

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 function: generating a risk map for one cointerp-backed concern as GeoJSON. It specifies the resource (soil polygons clipped to AOI) and distinguishes from siblings by limiting to cointerp-backed concerns and excluding SOC/custom concerns, which is a clear differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (cointerp-backed concerns like SOH, Hydric, etc.) and when not to (SOC and custom concerns raise an error). This provides clear usage context and exclusions, though it doesn't name alternative tools, the prohibitive guidance is sufficient.

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