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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output format (A–F grades / 0–100 scores), the breadth of hazard types, and the API-key-driven invocation pattern. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The main sentence is front-loaded and informative, and the example is helpful for invocation. However, the hazard enumeration is slightly redundant ('flood, wildfire, wind, hail, crime…' followed by a longer list containing those same hazards), so it is not maximally tight.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers return format and value context. All 5 required parameters are fully documented in the schema. Minor gaps like error handling and data freshness are not addressed, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool 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 schema already fully documents street, city, state, zip, and _apiKey. The description's example repeats those parameters but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns A–F grades / 0–100 scores across 25+ hazard types' for a property address. It clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on multi-peril property risk for insurance underwriting and due diligence, which none of the sibling names suggest.

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 gives useful context ('for insurance underwriting & due diligence') and implies when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or name any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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