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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact cost model (0.004 USDC via x402 or 2 API credits) and the authoritative data provenance, which an agent needs before invoking a paid tool.

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?

Purpose, data contents, audience and pricing are front-loaded in one dense but waste-free block; each clause carries information. It is slightly more packed than needed but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned risk metrics, so an agent understands the payload. The one gap is that 0 parameters are required while the description implies postcode + house number is the input, leaving the required-combination rule implicit.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema, and the description only summarizes input as 'postcode + house number'. It omits mention of the free-text `q` alternative, `addition` and `house_letter`, adding little beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific resource (Netherlands flood risk per address), the authority/source (Rijkswaterstaat LIWO), and the exact metrics returned (annual flood probability, scenarios, modelled depth, AHN ground height). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data tools like nl_home_basic or nl_crime.

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 names intended consumers (real estate, mortgage, insurance, ESG, relocation agents) and the input shape, which implies when it is relevant. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., whether nl_home_report already bundles flood risk) and no conditions under which it should be avoided.

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