get_disaster_risk

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

Discloses that it's a live query (never estimated), points outside US NRI coverage return coverage=unavailable, and county-level resolution. Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so description adds valuable behavioral context beyond 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?

Description is informative but somewhat lengthy; however, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise without losing key details.

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?

Completely describes the return structure (composite_score, rating, hazards list, top_hazards, coverage, etc.), cites authoritative source, and addresses edge cases like unavailable coverage. No output schema exists, so this is thorough.

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. Description adds example values (33.45, -112.07) and clarifies decimal degrees format, but does not add significant meaning beyond 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?

Clear verb 'get disaster risk' with specific resource (lat/lon), enumerates hazards, and differentiates from siblings like get_water_risk and get_composite_site_score.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when a user wants...'), provides an example, and specifies when not to use (chronic water stress -> get_water_risk, blended verdict -> get_composite_site_score).

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