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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and delivers: ordering by name, ZIP+4 normalization to five digits, empty results for a known-but-unlisted ZIP versus a 404 for an unknown ZIP, the point-in-time nature of `as_of`, and the absence of rate data. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs before and after invocation.

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 core scope statement is front-loaded, and the three paragraphs each contribute distinct information (scope/ordering, path semantics/error behavior, regulatory context and companion tools). It runs slightly long, but no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description covers the return shape (`results` list, name ordering, FEMA ID, `as_of` snapshot date) and the error/empty distinction, plus the expected follow-up call for rates. That is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret this single-parameter endpoint 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 parameter already has examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema by explaining the normalization rule (ZIP+4 truncated to the first five digits) and the differing outcomes for known-empty versus unknown ZIPs.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('FEMA-listed properties by ZIP code') and the body confirms listing behavior ordered by name. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_fema_hotel_by_id (single property) and get_fema_hotels_by_state_city (different key).

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 for when this lookup matters (reimbursement eligibility under the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act) and tells the agent to combine it with GSA per diem lookups for the lodging ceiling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting the ZIP key against search_fema_hotels or the state/city variant.

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