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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld; the description adds material traits beyond that: a free preview of line count and price, the paid rate ($0.05/line, $10.00 minimum), that address and date_of_loss travel in a POST body to stay out of logs, and a caveat that date_of_loss is a reference anchor and not a claim determination.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope and the routing rules, and most sentences carry unique information. The second sentence duplicates the title verbatim, which is wasted text already present in structured metadata.

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 7-parameter, no-required-parameter pricing tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers selection, alternatives, cost, preview mechanics, input privacy, and the date_of_loss caveat. It stops short of describing what a report 'line' or the returned report actually contains.

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, but the description adds real meaning: date_of_loss semantics (anchors the report, is not a validity determination), address vs lat/lon as alternatives, and privacy handling of inputs. It does not clarify the potentially confusing address (string) vs addresses (boolean preview/full flag) pair.

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?

Specific verb+resource (storm history report for one property) with scope stated as '2003 to present' and 11 named event categories. It explicitly names the siblings it is not (get_address_report for the 365-day snapshot, get_storm_history for county summaries), so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('full citable record for a single address, or a date-of-loss lookup') and explicit when-not with the exact alternative tool for each case. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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