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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical interpretation caveat: a returned row means 'found nearby', not that the property flooded. It also discloses the cost (3¢ per call). It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but the main misinterpretation risk is addressed.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the crucial interpretation caveat and the price. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is simple (one parameter, output schema provided). The description covers the key caveat and cost. It does not mention prerequisites like needing a gnaf_id from a geocoding step, but that is implicitly understood from the sibling context. The output schema covers return details, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 0% for the single parameter gnaf_id. The description does not explain what gnaf_id represents or how it should be formatted. The name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value in clarifying the parameter's meaning or usage.

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 returns recorded historical flood extents within a 1 km radius, specifying the resource (historical flood extents) and scope (within 1 km). It distinguishes itself from siblings like properties_risks_flood by the 'historical' qualifier and the distance constraint.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as properties_risks_flood or properties_risks_all. The purpose is clear, but the agent must infer from the name and description that it is for historical flood data; there is no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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