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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses what the tool runs, what it returns, and its limitations. The disclaimer that this is informational public-record synthesis and not an insurance rating or route guarantee is valuable behavioral context that annotations cannot provide.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it runs/returns, and what it is not. Key comparison intent is front-loaded, and no content 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately describes the return types: source coverage, point-in-time risk evidence, and an operational review checklist. It also mentions the optional FEMA extension and the limitations, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic linkage by explaining that the optional area/state parameters feed FEMA disaster history, which helps an agent understand how optional parameters relate to the tool's behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compare origin and destination risk for a logistics lane. It clearly distinguishes itself from single-location tools like location_risk_report by emphasizing the two-address comparison.

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 makes the primary use case clear: when you need to compare risk along a logistics lane between two addresses. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the two-address framing provides sufficient contextual guidance.

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