check_nfhl_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool is a read-only check and implies a yes/no result, but it doesn't describe the response format, error behavior, or limitations (e.g., locations outside mapped areas).

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds practical usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with fully described inputs, the description is largely complete: it explains what it checks, when to run it, and what the result conveys. It doesn't specify the exact return format, but 'tells you whether' sufficiently implies a boolean or coverage-status response.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description only refers to 'a given location' and adds no further parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 verb ('Check whether'), a specific resource (FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer), and a clear outcome (has official flood map coverage). It positions the tool as a preliminary coverage check, setting it apart from sibling data-retrieval tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run this first if other tools return no data.' This is a clear condition and sequencing hint. It doesn't name sibling tools explicitly, but 'other tools' is understandable in the context of the sibling list.

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