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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description reveals how the score is derived: it starts at 100 and subtracts itemized deductions for SFHA flood, active alerts, declarations, EPA non-compliance, and strong quakes. It also states that a failing source is noted but not fatal, giving the agent important context for interpreting partial responses.

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?

Every sentence adds information: purpose, source fan-out and coverage, scoring mechanics, failure behavior, and disclaimer. The key output is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is 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?

Given the tool's multi-source complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description is unusually complete: it names all integrated data sources, states the scoring model, gives geographic coverage limits, and describes failure behavior. An agent has enough context to decide when to call it and how to interpret the 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?

All four parameters already have schema descriptions, so 100% schema coverage sets the baseline at 3. The description adds the high-level geocode-address-or-take-lat/lon pattern and explains how state scopes EPA/parcel/declaration lookups, but much of this is restated in the schema, so it does not substantially raise the score.

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 first sentence identifies the deliverable—an explainable, site-bound hazard/environmental profile with a 0-100 risk score—and the rest details inputs and sources, so an agent can recognize it as a consolidated report rather than a single-source lookup. The explicit fan-out to FEMA, NWS, USGS, EPA, and parcel sources distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover only one of those domains.

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 phrase 'One-call' plus the long fan-out list tells the agent this is the appropriate choice when a consolidated location risk score is needed across multiple sources, and the coverage caveats help set expectations. It also adds a clear 'not a substitute for a professional site assessment' exclusion. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as environmental_site_risk or say when to prefer a single-source lookup, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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