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

The description adds specifics beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the data scope (storm history up to 365 days and forecast risk) and the input modes. It does not mention output format or error handling, but it provides meaningful behavioral context for a read-only 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the input instructions. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a read-only report with no output schema, the description explains what is returned and how to specify input, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the output structure or edge cases (e.g., conflicting parameters), but the tool is simple and the annotations already cover safety.

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% with simple descriptions for each parameter. The description adds grouping: either address+county+state or lat/lon, clarifying how the parameters should be combined, which goes beyond the individual schema entries. This adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns both past storm history (up to 365 days) and forecast risk for a single property, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on one aspect. It also specifies the input modes (address with county+state, or lat/lon), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies a combined report but does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when to prefer this over get_storm_history or get_risk_forecast. It gives clear input instructions but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose.

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