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

Annotations already signal readOnly and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing that this is a priced premium call ($0.15 USDC) and that outputs are JSON with a fused hazard verdict and factors. It does not cover every behavior such as rate limits or exact response shape, but the important operational traits are disclosed.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the tool identity and bundling value, then lists components, use cases, output format, and price. Nothing is filler, though the long run-on structure makes it slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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?

Without an output schema, the description still gives a useful preview of the response: JSON, combined sources, overall hazard verdict with factors, plus input modes and pricing. It could be more explicit about the required-address constraint or expected hazard verdict scale, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call this 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters, and the description largely restates the address-or-lat+lon relationship found in the schema. It adds the 'US property' scope, but it leaves the required-address-versus-optional-lat/lon ambiguity unresolved, so it does not meaningfully improve on 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?

The description names a specific deliverable — a bundled property hazard report for a US property — and enumerates the exact data sources (FEMA flood, USGS seismic, weather, alerts) and the fused hazard verdict. This clearly distinguishes it from generic weather, earthquake, or geocoding siblings and from the similarly named realestate_site_risk tool.

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 states when to use it: for insurance, lending, and siting decisions, with an input mode of address or lat+lon. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or say when not to use it, but the use-case framing and 'one premium call' bundling provide clear situational context.

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