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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the PRO/subscriber gating and the 10-ZIP ceiling, but says nothing about the cost of exceeding the limit, auth failure behavior, or what a comparison result looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence with the access tier front-loaded and the scope limit immediately after the resource. Nothing is wasted, though the terse 'PRO.' fragment assumes the reader knows what that means.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, tier, and input limit, but leaves return-value shape and over-limit behavior entirely unexplained — gaps that the absent structured metadata cannot fill.

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 50% (only access_token is documented). The description compensates by disclosing the meaningful constraint on zips — a maximum of 10 — which the schema does not encode, but it adds no format details (e.g., leading zeros, 5-digit requirement) for the array items.

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 (Compare) and resource (flood-claim history) plus a hard scope limit of up to 10 ZIPs, which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-location sibling flood_history. It does not explicitly name flood_history or flood_report as alternatives, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 parenthetical use cases (house hunting, portfolio and lending risk) give context for when the tool is appropriate, and the 'up to 10 ZIPs' framing implies single-ZIP lookups belong elsewhere. However, no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to flood_history/flood_report is given.

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