get_lomas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ~100m search radius and location-based search behavior, which is valuable. But it does not mention response shape, result limits, ordering, or what happens when no LOMAs are found.

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 with no waste: action, domain definition, and search radius. The LOMA definition earns its place by helping differentiate from LOMRs without adding bloat.

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 tool is simple and invocation is clear, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description should ideally state what a successful response contains or how results are ordered/limited; the missing return-value expectations leave the agent partly guessing.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for lat and lon and their ranges, so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds the ~100m radius context, which clarifies the 'near a location' phrasing, but does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get Letters of Map Amendment (LOMAs) near a location.' It defines a LOMA in a way that inherently distinguishes it from the sibling get_lomrs (a LOMA does not revise the FIRM), so an agent can tell them apart without opening extra context.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use the tool: searching for LOMAs near a coordinate within ~100m. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the distinction from get_lomrs and other flood-related siblings implicit rather than direct.

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