fema-nri-county-risk-profile

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds substantial non-annotation context: metered Apify billing at $0.006/result, cheaper on paid plans, no charge on failed runs, and that the source itself is never written to. It also discloses graceful county fallback on tract misses, going well beyond what annotations already say.

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 purpose is front-loaded ahead of cost and pricing details, and each block is coherent. It is somewhat long and includes pricing minutiae and a store URL that are useful but slightly padded, keeping it just short of ideal tightness.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does identify the key returned fields, plus it explains the metered run and fallback behavior for a moderately complex join tool with 5 optional params. Remaining gaps (record shape, pagination, mode return differences) are minor.

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% and the schema already documents asset formats, mode selection (empty Assets triggers inventory mode), maxResults bounds, and resolution semantics with examples. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides (e.g., asset key types), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Join any asset ... to FEMA's National Risk Index') and enumerates the exact resource/fields returned: composite risk score, expected annual loss, social vulnerability, resilience, and ranked top-3 hazards across all 18 perils. This is highly specific and an agent can immediately tell what the tool produces.

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?

It gives clear context (reads live from the official source; call describe-gov-data-tool for a free verified example input) and implies use for asset-to-hazard joins. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as site-due-diligence-bundle or when the tool is inappropriate, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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