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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Audit' and the detection/calculation language imply a non-mutating analysis, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, data-source limitations, or error cases.

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 front-loaded sentence delivers the purpose and output scope without filler. It is dense but appropriately sized for the complexity, though splitting the calculation clause from the lookup clause could improve scanability.

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?

The description is rich about what the audit detects and calculates, and the schema fully covers parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral details such as return structure, data freshness, and failure modes that an agent would need for fully confident invocation.

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 schema already documents parcel_id, address, lat, lon, county, and format. The description does not add parameter-level 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 and resource: 'Audit a property against the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL)'. It then names the exact flood-zone, FIRM, BFE, insurance, and appraisal-deduction outputs, clearly distinguishing it from the many other audit_* siblings.

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 domain context implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among sibling tools. An agent can infer its purpose but must decide selection from the name and description alone.

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