get_transaction_flood

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral details: the two-state behavior (no return when no flood zone, with warning that absence is not safety), the cost structure (4 tokens, refunded if no flood data), and the exact data returned (worst hazard category, type, share, full per-scenario list).

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 well-structured with three paragraphs: main purpose, usage guidance, and edge case with cost. It is moderately long but front-loaded with core functionality. Could be slightly more concise but earns a 4.

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 has no output schema, but the description comprehensively explains returned data (category, type, share, per-scenario list) and the two-state behavior. For a single-parameter tool, this is fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the single parameter having a clear description. The tool description repeats but does not add new information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states 'Get the parcel-by-parcel flood-hazard breakdown for one transaction' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that search_transactions surfaces inline flood_risk, while this tool splits it into parcels, and search_by_polygon lacks inline flood data.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use it after a search when a result shows flood_risk.' It also clarifies that search_transactions and search_by_area provide inline flood_risk, while search_by_polygon does not, providing clear context for alternatives.

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