get_flood_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only lookup through the verb 'Look up' and enumerates the returned fields (zone code, SFHA, floodway, BFE, FIRM panel citation). It does not mention edge behaviors like coordinates outside NFHL coverage or error handling, but the core operation and outputs are clearly disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence announces the action and resource, the second lists outputs and positions the tool; everything 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?

The input schema fully documents the only two parameters, and the description lists the key return fields, which is essential since there is no output schema. It also positions the tool as the primary flood-risk lookup. The main gap is the absence of guidance on coverage limitations or failure behavior, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical omission.

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 lat and lon are already documented with ranges and WGS84 decimal-degree units. The description only references 'lat/lon coordinate' generically and adds no further semantic detail, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 operation — 'Look up the FEMA flood zone designation for a lat/lon coordinate' — and identifies the authoritative source (NFHL). It also lists concrete return values, making the tool's purpose very clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_base_flood_elevations or get_firm_panel, despite overlapping return fields.

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?

'This is the primary tool for flood risk lookup' provides clear context for when to select this tool. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or route to alternatives, so the guidance is strong but not fully comprehensive.

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