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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'recent' and 'FREE beta' but does not disclose response format, pagination, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations, but adds little beyond them.

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 sentence and very concise, but it lacks essential details. The leading 'FREE beta' is not essential and could be omitted. It is not structured to front-load the most important information for an agent.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent needs to know what 'recent' means in terms of time range, how 'limit' affects results, and what the response structure looks like. None of this is provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by US state or territory' which hints at the 'state' parameter, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the expected format beyond what the schema pattern already provides. Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 resource ('federal disaster declarations') and scope ('by US state or territory'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly say 'list' or 'search', and it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'fema_disaster_declarations_evidence', so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the evidence variant or other alternatives. No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over others.

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