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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the data is free and public federal, implying no auth/credential requirement, and lists the source agencies. It does not mention latency, rate limits, behavior on ambiguous address matches, partial-data failures, or what the composite risk score looks like or how it is scaled. The sentence also truncates mid-clause ('for 10 y'), leaving the disaster-declaration window underspecified.

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?

Effectively one long sentence with the purpose and dataset inventory front-loaded, which is efficient in spirit but heavy in enumeration. It ends abruptly at 'for 10 y', an incomplete fragment that signals a truncated definition rather than a deliberate close.

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 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description names inputs and data sources but never describes the shape of the result — the composite score, its scale, or how individual hazard layers are reported. Given the absence of an output schema, some statement about the return payload would materially help an agent decide whether to call it and how to use the values.

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 100%, so the schema already documents lat/lon pairing, address format, and the intended_use enum with its reweighting rules. The description adds only the address-or-coordinates alternative, which the schema states too, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — reads free public federal hazard data for a US street address or lat/lon — and enumerates the exact datasets returned (Census geocode, FEMA NFHL flood zone/SFHA/BFE, USGS ASCE 7-22 seismic, FEMA NRI tract ratings, OpenFEMA county declarations). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like property-violations-history, which covers a different record type.

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 a clear usage trigger: use it before an agent recommends, underwrites, or screens a US property, and restricts scope to US properties and to address or lat/lon input. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it (e.g., non-US properties, non-hazard questions), so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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