Check FEMA flood zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read-only lookup via 'Return', checks SFHA status, requires no API key, and cites the FEMA NFHL source. It does not cover error handling or data freshness, but for a simple point-query tool this is adequate.

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 three terse sentences: the first states the core function, the second addresses access (free, no key), and the third names the data source. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the returned concept (flood-hazard zone and SFHA eligibility) and provides access and source context. It lacks explicit output format details, but that is not critical for a simple lookup. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 full parameter descriptions (latitude/longitude in decimal degrees WGS84) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely echoes 'latitude/longitude point' without adding any new parameter nuances, such as coordinate order or bounds.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('FEMA flood-hazard zone') with clear scope ('for a latitude/longitude point, including whether it falls in a Special Flood Hazard Area'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like geocode_address and lookup_census_tract.

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 provides clear context by stating the tool's purpose and noting that it is free with no API key, which helps the agent infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state situations to avoid or name alternative tools, so it misses the bar for a 5.

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