rate_aoi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool submits to an external public web service (Soil Data Access), returns specific rating fields, and that results are advisory, not official. This goes beyond a simple 'rate' statement, though it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: action/input, execution/output detail, and a caveat about advisability. No redundant or filler content.

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 presence of an output schema (which descriptions needn't duplicate) and the complexity of the tool, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, the inputs, the output fields, and a key caveat. It doesn't mention relationship to sibling tools like rate_aois, but this is not essential when the tool list is available.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'wkt' by specifying the format (WKT, EPSG:4326) and for 'concerns' as a subset of concerns. However, the 'landunit' parameter is only referenced indirectly via 'landunit rating', which may be ambiguous; the default value 'AOI 1' is not explained.

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 ('Rate') and resource ('area of interest'), and includes the input format (WKT, EPSG:4326) and domain (CART soil resource concerns). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool rate_aois by focusing on a single AOI, and the mention of returning landunit ratings for ratable concerns adds further specificity.

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 clearly implies usage for rating a single area of interest and for CART soil concerns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool versus the plural rate_aois. The 'advisory' note also sets expectations about applicability.

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