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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating what the summary contains and by warning that the result is not parcel-level coverage or a flood determination. It does not mention limits, permissions, or freshness caveats beyond package dates.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and output contents, followed by usage guidance and an important scope disclaimer. Every clause contributes to either selection or correct interpretation, with no 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the key return dimensions: unit counts by kind, oldest/latest package dates, total download-volume estimate, and largest unit. It also sets accurate expectations about what the summary does not prove. Combined with complete annotations and schema coverage, the definition is complete enough to call and interpret correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters, including the state code/name and response_format enum. The description reinforces the one-state scope but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 ('Summarize') and resource ('all hosted FEMA NFHL inventory units for one state/territory'), then enumerates the summary dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fema_nfhl_get_inventory_item and fema_nfhl_search_inventory, which operate on individual or searched items rather than state-level aggregation.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for 'state coverage/freshness comparisons and data-acquisition budgeting,' which gives clear context. It also includes a scope disclaimer that the result does not mean every place/parcel has digital NFHL geometry and is not a flood determination. It does not name alternative sibling tools for related needs, but the intended use is well specified.

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