hazards_at_location

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

Even though annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: these are regulatory maps, not current conditions or safety assessments, and each hazard result includes status, containing zones, nearest zone distance, and reading notes. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 compact, front-loads the core value proposition, and every sentence earns its place: the hazard list, the output contents, the important regulatory caveat, and the routing to alternatives. No fluff or redundancy exists.

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 multi-hazard lookup tool with a rich output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, distinguishes itself from real-time safety products, and directs the agent to alternatives, leaving no critical decision unresolved.

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%, and the schema already thoroughly documents the location parameter, including examples and the note that coordinates skip geocoding. The tool description does not need to add much about parameters; it contributes little beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific purpose: retrieving all mapped hazards at a single location in one call, then enumerates exactly which hazard types and agencies are included. It clearly contrasts with sibling single-hazard tools by presenting itself as the consolidated option.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this for consolidated hazard-zone data, use single-hazard tools when only one hazard is needed, and use read_guide('real_time_sources') for active fires, evacuations, and alerts. This is strong routing behavior.

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