get_flood_areas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves flood areas but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), what the return format looks like (e.g., list of areas with properties), pagination details (though offset is in schema), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get flood areas') and adds clarifying context in parentheses. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what properties flood areas include), how results are ordered, or error conditions. For a geographic query tool with pagination, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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%, with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters (lat, long, dist, limit, offset). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'flood areas', with additional context about what flood areas represent ('regions where warnings/alerts may apply'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_flood_warnings' or 'get_measures' by focusing on geographic regions rather than warnings or measurements. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_flood_area' (singular), which might retrieve a specific area.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over siblings like 'get_flood_warnings' (which might provide actual warnings) or 'get_flood_area' (which might retrieve a single area by ID). There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing geographic coordinates for effective use.

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