Detailed natural disaster risk data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's disaster risk section isn't sufficient depth. Includes FEMA NRI overall risk score, individual hazard scores (hurricane, tornado, earthquake, wildfire, flood, etc.), and expected annual loss estimates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists what data is included (FEMA NRI score, hazard scores, annual loss estimates) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or whether the tool is read-only. Assumed safe but not explicit.
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?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second provides usage guidance and content overview. No redundancy, each sentence adds value.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and data content. However, it lacks details on the return structure or data format, which would help the agent process the output. Adequate but not complete.
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 0%, meaning description does not detail the single parameter (zip) beyond stating 'one ZIP code.' While the schema already defines it as a required string, the description adds minimal context that it expects a single ZIP code, but no format details (e.g., 5-digit format). Baseline 3 due to low coverage with slight added meaning.
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?
Description clearly states the tool provides 'detailed natural disaster risk data for one ZIP code' and distinguishes from sibling get_zip_profile by specifying when to use this tool over that alternative.
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?
Explicit guidance given: 'Use when get_zip_profile's disaster risk section isn't sufficient depth.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over the sibling, but no other alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Domain-specific profiles (e.g., get_air_quality_profile) are explicitly for deeper dives after get_zip_profile, while search, reverse geocode, research, and methodology tools each serve unique roles with no overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_<domain>_profile, search_zips, reverse_geocode, compare_zips, get_research, get_methodology, etc. The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
22 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but each tool addresses a specific need (12 domain profiles, search, geocoding, articles, methodology, ping). The count is appropriate for the breadth of data offered.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: discover (search_zips, get_search_fields), retrieve (get_zip_profile, domain profiles), compare (compare_zips), and ancillary (reverse_geocode, get_research, get_methodology). There are no dead ends or obvious gaps.
