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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses important behavioral limits: no whole-site or access determination, no UK 3a/3b acceptance, no generated risk/FRA outcome, and low river-sea context never means no flooding. It also states failure behavior, FLOOD_EVIDENCE_UNAVAILABLE, unknown facts, freshness caveats, and Northern Ireland/outside coverage fallback.

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 dense but well structured with explicit Purpose, When to use, Returns, Limitations, Parameter guidance, and Chaining sections. Every sentence carries operational value, and the most important scoping constraints are front-loaded.

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 output schema and annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool and how to chain it. It covers scope, limitations, return expectations, failure behavior, parameter choice, and reuse of site_ref.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds practical parameter guidance: use a full address or prior resolved site_ref and pass site_ref unchanged to reuse the canonical site. This provides useful chaining semantics 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve reported flood point evidence with source-state and coverage limits. It clearly distinguishes this as first-pass evidence rather than an authority-level or site-specific flood determination.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: first-pass flood evidence before authority/site-specific review, plus fallback guidance for unsupported jurisdictions. It does not name a specific sibling tool such as prepare_sequential_review as the alternative, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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