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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the ~150 m detection radius, that the county forecast label is secondary, and that the paid single-address route is a different tool with a flat per-address price and an API-key/x402 requirement. It doesn't state this tool's own cost or auth picture explicitly, only contrasting it.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the scope constraint comes first, then routing, then the paid-alternative caveat. Slightly penalized for restating the title verbatim in the first two sentences, which duplicates the title field rather than adding information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does name the payload (own reported and radar-detected events plus a county forecast label). It omits output shape/pagination details and its own cost/auth status, but for a read-only lookup with clear routing it is close to sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema cannot: it clarifies that input is 'an address with county and state, OR lat/lon' — an either/or usage pattern that is not obvious from five optional parameters with no required fields.

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+resource ('Property Snapshot by Address: Past Storm Leads plus County Forecast Label') with the precise scope front-loaded ('ONE PROPERTY, PAST 365 DAYS'). It distinguishes itself from all four relevant siblings by name and by what each does differently (wider radius, county-level, forecast-only).

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?

Explicitly names the when-to-use case (recent storms at one exact address, ~150 m radius) and gives three explicit exclusions with the sibling to use instead: get_property_storm_history_report (wider 5-mile radius, counts will differ), get_storm_history (county), get_risk_forecast (forecasts). It even flags that counts will differ between tools, which prevents misreading divergent results.

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