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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses the free preview behavior, the address-level paid tier requiring an API key or x402 payment, and the HTTP 402 fallback with payment instructions. It also documents multi-county limits and the no-arguments menu behavior.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose and scope first, sibling alternatives second, usage discovery third, and pricing/auth details fourth. Every sentence contributes decision-relevant information, and there is no repetition of annotation or schema boilerplate.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema)Skip is complete: it covers dataset selection, sibling routing, free vs. paid behavior, authentication paths, error handling, and a fallback discovery mechanism. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing what free previews return and by offering the no-arguments menu.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantic context beyond the schema: the meaning of each dataset option, the addresses=true authentication/payment distinction, the comma-separated counties constraint, and the fact that peril only applies to dataset=storms. This materially helps an agent select and combine parameters correctly.

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 opens with 'Advanced query for datasets NOT covered by the other tools' and enumerates the eight supported dataset modes, making the tool's role as an advanced aggregate/query tool explicit. It clearly distinguishes itself from the single-county and single-property sibling tools.

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 explicitly names get_storm_history, get_risk_forecast, and get_address_report as the simpler alternatives for common single-county/property cases. It also tells the agent to call with no arguments to get the full API menu, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to invoke this tool.

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