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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds only 'FREE beta', which hints at potential instability or limitations but is vague. It does not contradict the annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context 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, brief sentence that is not verbose. However, it begins with 'FREE beta', which is not the most critical information, though it does not significantly detract from the overall conciseness.

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 simple tool with two parameters, the description should at least clarify the required 'state' parameter and the optional 'limit'. It does neither, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and general knowledge. The tool's functionality is partially clear but incomplete for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain what 'state' or 'limit' mean, their formats, or how they influence results. This leaves the agent without essential information to construct a valid request.

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 that the tool returns 'FEMA declaration details including programs, incident dates and declared areas', which clearly communicates the resource and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'fema_disaster_declarations_basic', relying on the name 'evidence' to imply a more detailed variant.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the basic version or other evidence tools. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or conditions for selection. The only contextual hint, 'FREE beta', is not a usage guideline.

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