Estimate property insurance costs including flood zone assessment. USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO — includes insurance estimates in all capital advisory assessments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | State | |
| usage | No | Usage: occupied, vacant, short_term_rental | |
| propertyType | Yes | Property type | |
| propertyValue | Yes | Property value |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it includes 'flood zone assessment', which is useful beyond the schema, but it does not describe output format or any other operational traits.
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 first sentence is concise and valuable, but the second sentence is marketing fluff ('USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO...') that does not earn its place for an AI agent. The description would be stronger if it ended after the first sentence.
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?
Despite the marketing filler, the description is complete enough for a simple read-only estimation tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations. It clearly states what the tool does and a key feature (flood zone), and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the simplicity of the expected result.
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%, with each parameter having a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate property insurance costs', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like util-property_tax and util-rent_estimate. The mention of 'flood zone assessment' adds a unique feature that further clarifies its scope.
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 implies usage through its purpose statement but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The second sentence about USDV Capital is more about the service context and does not help an agent decide between this and other estimation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
