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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully adds that this is FREE, county-scoped, and 'not a damage assessment', plus pricing/auth for the paid alternative. However it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or result limits that the annotations don't cover. With the safety profile carried by annotations, this is an adequate but not rich addition.

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 key constraints (COUNTY LEVEL, FREE, PAST 365 DAYS) and every sentence routes or excludes. Slightly redundant, restating the title's 'Past Storm Leads by Address' and the 365-day window, but no wasted clauses.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does name the result contents (event counts, storm types, severity ranges, repeat properties) plus all routing and the paid alternative. It stops short of describing any response structure or limits, leaving a small gap for a 5-param data tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a real semantic constraint the schema only implies: 'Input is state plus county, never a street address', which disambiguates the required params from address-level tools. Otherwise param details (peril values, min_severity example) merely restate the schema.

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+scope: county-level reported and radar-detected storm history for the past 365 days, returning event counts, storm types, severity ranges and repeat properties. It explicitly names the siblings it is NOT (get_address_report, get_property_storm_history_report, get_risk_forecast) so an agent can route 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 an explicit when-to-use ('how much storm activity a county has had in the past year'), several when-not cases with named alternatives, and even the paid escalation path (get_weather_data with dataset=storms and addresses=true) including cost and auth requirements.

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