get_flood_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the data source (Environment Agency), the coverage limitation (England only), and that no API key is required, which is useful. However, it lacks details on return format, error behavior, or update frequency, which are important for a tool with no 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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the tool's purpose, then details the checks performed, and finishes with key constraints. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.

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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description only vaguely says it 'summarises planning risk' without specifying the output structure, risk categories, or any additional data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to interpret the tool's results.

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 covers all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by stating 'England coverage only,' which clarifies that only lat/lon coordinates within England are valid despite the country code 'GB' being accepted. This refines the parameter semantics.

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 tool's specific function: it checks Environment Agency Flood Zone 2, Flood Zone 3, and flood storage areas, and summarises planning risk. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_terrain_analysis or get_agricultural_land, which address different site constraints.

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 implies the tool is for flood planning on English sites, and notes limitations (GB input, England coverage only), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are referenced, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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