get_firm_panel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the main behavior and return content: panel number, suffix, effective date, and panel type. However, it does not mention potential edge cases such as unmapped locations, coordinate precision requirements, or what happens when no FIRM panel exists for the location.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool returns, the second states its purpose. Every sentence adds value and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and intended use. It could be slightly more complete by noting behavior for locations without a mapped FIRM panel, but overall the agent has enough information to call the tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both lat and lon, including WGS84 and valid ranges. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond describing a 'location,' 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('FEMA FIRM panel number and metadata'), and the exact items returned (panel number, suffix, effective date, panel type). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_flood_zone or get_lomas, which target different flood-related data.

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 explicitly says to use the tool 'to identify which flood map covers a location and when it was last updated,' giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent.

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