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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful return context beyond annotations: bounded pagination, both displayed and filename-derived dates, canonical FEMA download evidence, snapshot hashes, and a pinned rather than live data source. It does not specify auth needs, rate limits, or maximum page size, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then use case, then disambiguation. Every sentence earns its place and none of the dense phrasing 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 an 11-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter scope, returned data, intended commercial use, and the critical distinction from live flood-zone lookup. Annotations handle safety, and the schema fully covers parameters, so nothing essential is missing.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description lists some filter dimensions but adds no syntax, format, or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource (FEMA's nationwide NFHL coverage/download inventory), then names the exact filter dimensions. It also distinguishes itself from a key sibling by stating that address/coordinate flood-zone questions belong to flood_zone_lookup.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('screen coverage/freshness and plan acquisition before property diligence') and an explicit when-not/alternative ('for an address or coordinate flood-zone question use flood_zone_lookup'). The routing instruction is concrete enough to prevent the most likely misselection.

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