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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the response includes only area percentage by default, with optional geojson, and mentions truncation/simplification metadata when geojson is true. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose response structure or any typical default behaviors like response size or performance.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence nails the purposeimiento, then clarifies scope, then provides a pointer to the sibling, then explains the optional parameter. No fluff or repetition; 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (signaling structured response), the description actually covers the key decision points: what is measured (area share), how to get dwelling counts (alternative), and how to get geometry (geojson). It correctly addresses the main pitfall of confusing area with propertiesmkdir and provides routing information. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 50%: geojson is well documented in the schema, but suburb_name has no schema description. The description compensates by implying suburb_name is the target suburb, and it explicitly explains geojson's effect and output. This adds meaning beyond the schema for both parameters, especially since the schema leaves suburb_name undocumented.

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 the share of suburb area covered by flood overlays, explicitly distinguishing 'Area, not properties' and pointing to the alternative for dwelling-level data. It also explains the geojson option for obtaining spatial polygons, which fully disambiguates it from sibling tools like suburbs_risks_bushfire or suburbs_risks_property_hazard_counts.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the alternative (property-hazard-counts), stating the exact endpoint for the other toolociative. It also tells the agent to pass geojson=true when needing the flood zone location, and warns against inferring street location from coverage_pct alone, which is concrete and actionable.

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