Get Disaster Risk

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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description goes well beyond those by disclosing that results come from a live authoritative FEMA dataset, are never estimated, are county-level, and that non-US points return coverage=unavailable. This materially helps the agent reason about results and edge cases without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: use case, data source, example, return semantics, resolution, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information. The main minor inefficiency is that the return-structure summary partly duplicates what an output schema would already provide, but the high-level semantic notes (e.g., 0-100 higher=worse) still earn their 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?

For a geospatial hazard tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: input coordinates, hazards included, data provenance, geographic coverage constraints, county-level resolution, output semantics, and sibling alternatives. The rich output schema handles structural return details, and the description supplies the interpretive and routing context on top.

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 the parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds a concrete example and implicitly signals that lat/lon are needed, but it doesn't add substantially new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline-3 score is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-documentation load.

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 specific, actionable use case ('Use when a user wants the natural-hazard / disaster risk for a lat/lon'), names the specific resource (FEMA National Risk Index), and lists covered hazard types. It also clearly distinguishes itself from nearby sibling tools by naming get_water_risk and get_composite_site_score, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool uniquely provides.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use statement and an explicit when-not-to-use (or use-alternative) statement: chronic water stress → get_water_risk; blended site verdict → get_composite_site_score. It also clarifies geographic coverage limitations and provides a concrete example invocation, so an agent knows exactly when and how to deploy the tool.

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