get_lomrs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields (case number, project name, effective date, status) and explains what LOMRs are, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any limits, permissions, or edge-case behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence clarifies the LOMR concept and the third lists the return values; every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 covers purpose, input concept, and return fields. It misses guidance on distinguishing LOMRs from LOMAs or any result limits, but it is otherwise reasonably complete.

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 input schema already documents lat/lon with descriptions and 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It only refers generically to 'a location' and adds no parameter-specific meaning, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Get Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) that affect a location') and adds useful context about what LOMRs are and their effect on flood zone designations. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with its sibling get_lomas, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 use whenever LOMRs for a location are needed and explains their significance, but it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as get_lomas. The choice of when to use this tool versus related siblings is left to inference.

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