Combined location risk score (0-100) for underwriting: earthquake + weather/storm + NatCat proximity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | No | Latitude (alternative to location) | |
| location | No | City or address e.g. 'Tokyo', 'Hamburg', 'Los Angeles' | |
| longitude | No | Longitude (alternative to location) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the score range and the factors combined, but it does not explain the calculation method, what happens if neither latitude/longitude nor location is provided, or if both are provided. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, includes the output range and constituent factors, and contains no extraneous 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?
For a simple tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the score's purpose and composition. It lacks guidance on parameter ambiguity (e.g., providing both lat/long and location), but is otherwise complete for basic usage.
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 each parameter described, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions 'location' generically but does not enhance the meaning of latitude, longitude, or location beyond what the schema already states.
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 computes a combined location risk score (0-100) for underwriting, breaking it down into earthquake, weather/storm, and NatCat proximity components. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like earthquake_risk and weather_risk.
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 the tool is for underwriting scenarios that need a combined score, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual risk tools or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.