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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the flood zone is required and a failed FEMA read aborts the call with no charge, other sections degrade to 'unavailable', every section carries a status, and billing is 8c as property.address_profile. This is exactly the added context the annotations cannot provide.

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 first sentence and the section list is scannable, but the bullet enumeration of report sections partially duplicates the output schema and could be trimmed. Still, every block carries selection or invocation value rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be restated, yet the description re-lists the sections; the genuinely load-bearing additions (failure semantics, billing, disclaimer retention, sources[]) are present. The main gap is that the mutual exclusivity of address vs lat/lon is never resolved for an agent.

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 33% (only `address` is described) and none of the three params are annotated in the description beyond implying 'address or coordinate'. It does not explain coordinate format, whether address is geocoded server-side, or how lat/lon and address interact when both or neither are supplied despite 0 required params.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and scope: a 'one-call US property report for an address or coordinate' enumerating flood, demographics and hazards. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the siblings flood_zone, hazard_history and area_demographics, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Has an explicit 'When to use' clause: use for an overview of a US property rather than one specific fact, and it names the three sibling tools it replaces. It also implies when-not by positioning itself against single-fact tools.

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