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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output types (storm, flood, wind risk, insurance recommendations) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any potential side effects, data sources, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 short sentences that cover purpose, time frame, scope, and output types. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the simple 3-parameter schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's core functionality and expected return facets (storm, flood, wind risk, insurance recommendations). However, it could be slightly more complete by noting the need for either a location or lat/lon pair, though this is implied by the schema.

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. The description adds no information about parameter syntax or selection beyond the schema, which already documents latitude, longitude, and location alternatives. Thus, it provides no additional semantic value.

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's function: a 7-day weather risk assessment for any location, specifying the outputs (storm, flood, wind risk, and insurance recommendations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like earthquake_risk and natcat_history by focusing on weather-specific perils and a 7-day forecast horizon.

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 usage is for any location and for obtaining short-term weather risk, which gives a basic context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., earthquake_risk, natcat_history) or exclude scenarios, so it lacks clear when/when-not guidance.

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