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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 404-on-miss behavior, that FEMA publishes only the current list (no historical snapshots), and that `as_of` reflects snapshot date. It also warns that no rate data is returned. Missing auth/rate-limit or pagination context, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the 404 behavior, then background, then the cross-tool recommendation. The statutory preamble about the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act is contextually useful for why the tool matters but is the least load-bearing sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape; it does so adequately by identifying the returned property record, the `as_of` snapshot field, and the explicit absence of rates. An agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is fully documented there (format, example, case-insensitivity). The description adds domain framing ('Each property on the list has a FEMA ID') but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the property registered under a FEMA ID.' The single-record-by-identifier scope is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_fema_hotels and get_fema_hotels_by_state_city/zipcode lookups, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear selection context ('Each property on the list has a FEMA ID') and explicitly routes the agent onward: 'This endpoint returns no rates: combine it with the GSA per diem lookups for the lodging ceiling.' No explicit when-not-use statement or named alternative for bulk/location lookup, which keeps it below a 5.

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