dfw_fema_flood

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the specific fields returned, the data source (FEMA NFHL), and the geocoding method. This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 sentences, no fluff. The purpose is stated first, followed by output and source details. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, output, source, and geocoding. With no output schema, it explains return values well. It could mention error handling or address format requirements, but overall it is sufficient for a read-only lookup 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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'address' or 'latitude'+'longitude' is required and providing an example address. However, it does not describe the latitude/longitude parameters beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb ('Look up'), resource ('FEMA flood zone'), and scope ('for a DFW address'). It lists specific output fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover other DFW services like crime or schools.

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 DFW addresses and mentions geocoding via U.S. Census, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, which would be helpful.

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