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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint and a closed-world profile, so the safety burden is offloaded. The description still adds real behavioral context: it discloses that results come from live government service calls (latency/availability implications), names the underlying data sources, and flags the accuracy limitation of a geocoded point versus a survey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by the output inventory and then the caveat — a sensible ordering. The single dense sentence is information-rich but somewhat list-heavy; every clause carries content, so little is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: scope, data sources, behavioral traits, and the accuracy caveat. An agent can call it correctly and interpret the result without further context.

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 100% for the single 'address' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by constraining the input to a single address within Charleston County, which the schema's format hint does not state, and by implying the point is determined by the Census geocoder.

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 names a specific resource (FEMA flood zone + base flood elevation for one address) and enumerates exactly what is returned: map panel and date, town vs City of Charleston, county tax district, and USGS lidar ground height. No sibling tool covers flood data, and the scope ('One street address in Charleston County') is stated up front so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 scopes usage precisely (single address, Charleston County only) and adds a when-not-to-rely caveat ('A geocoded point, not a survey — the person confirms on the parcel's elevation certificate'). What it lacks is any explicit routing to alternatives, though none of the sibling tools overlap, so the practical risk is low.

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