flood_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds important interpretation beyond those: every FEMA zone counts as in_zone including X, SFHA_TF should be read, and Zone D means not studied and not safe. This prevents misleading conclusions and adds genuine behavioral context.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core resource and behavior are front-loaded, and the caveats about zone classes are packed efficiently into the remaining sentences.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and robust annotations, the description is complete. It covers the core query, the result semantics, and the critical safety interpretation, leaving no major gap for an agent to call and use it correctly.

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%, with the Location object fully explaining address vs. lat/lon usage and noting that coordinates skip geocoding. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific resource (FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer), a clear operation (look up flood zone at a location), and the key output concept (nearest zone of each FLD_ZONE class). It distinguishes itself from hazard siblings by name and content, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly establishes when this tool applies: for FEMA flood zone information at a location, including how to interpret zones. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can route flood-specific requests here without confusion.

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