get_zip_climate_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the data fetched (climate hazards, premiums, etc.), which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a data retrieval tool, this is adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines the function, second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. It does not describe the output structure, but for a simple retrieval tool, the user might infer from the described metrics. Could be improved by mentioning typical output format.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (zip), including pattern and required status. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates 'any valid 5-digit US ZIP Code.' 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 clearly states the tool fetches comprehensive climate hazards, insurance premiums, and related metrics for any valid 5-digit US ZIP code. The verb 'fetches' and resource 'climate risk data for ZIP code' are specific. No sibling tools exist, so no differentiation needed.

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 explicitly states: 'Use this tool whenever a user asks about real estate due diligence, moving to a new area, property risk profiles, or homeownership costs in a specific location.' This provides clear context for when to use it. No alternatives are mentioned due to lack of sibling tools, but the guidance is direct and helpful.

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