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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real substance by naming the upstream authority and disclosing that results are risk-record listings rather than parcel-level polygons. It does not cover rate limits, latency, or result grouping, but the output schema carries the return shape.

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, zero filler, with the data scope front-loaded and the critical limitation saved for last where it lands. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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 an output schema exists and annotations are complete, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: provenance, the three result categories, non-parcel granularity, and the false-negative caveat. An agent can decide to call it and correctly report its limitations without further reading.

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%: lat, lon, and radius_m (100–10000, default 1000) are all documented with units and WGS84 datums. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the notion of a point and a radius, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (flood-risk information around a point in France from Géorisques) and enumerates the three layers returned: commune flood hazards, AZI atlases within radius, and TRI territories. The domain is narrow enough that no sibling could be confused with it, but the description never names an alternative tool (e.g. fr_commune, fr_land_cover) to route against explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'around a point in France' framing and by the required lat/lon, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for parcel-level or non-French queries. The closing caveat ('absence of a record is not proof of no flood risk') is a valuable interpretation constraint, which lifts it above a bare 2.

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