FEMA Disasters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the read-only nature via 'Get' and includes behavioral details such as the default and maximum limit. It also specifies the type of records returned, but does not mention authentication, pagination, or error conditions, which would make it 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief explanatory paragraph, and a clear Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without waste.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameter semantics, and record contents. Given the output schema exists, return format is already available. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even without explicit alternative tool guidance.

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%, yet the description thoroughly documents each parameter with examples and accepted values (e.g., state abbreviations, disaster_type codes, limit range). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with 'Get FEMA disaster declarations filtered by state, year, or type,' clearly identifying the operation and resource. It also specifies it returns major disasters, emergencies, and fire management assistance, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_disaster_detail or grants.

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 provides clear context that this tool returns a filtered list of declarations, and explains the available filters. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools or any exclusions, though the scope is implied by the listing nature.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool 'Returns comprehensive data' and lists what is included (programs, dates, areas), but does not explicitly mention side effects (none expected), error handling, or access constraints. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not stated explicitly.

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 about five sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return details and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundant fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 the simple one-parameter tool, an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), and the description covers the essential workflow (getting numbers from the list tool). It could add guidance on handling missing/invalid disaster numbers, but the current description is sufficient for a typical detail lookup.

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 0%, yet the description includes a dedicated 'Args' section fully explaining disaster_number with examples ('e.g. 4737, 3604') and its source. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare integer schema, making parameter usage clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific FEMA disaster declaration.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_disaster_declarations (list) by emphasizing 'single disaster' and 'specific'.

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 instructs to 'Use disaster numbers from get_disaster_declarations results,' providing a clear source for the input parameter. It implies the tool is for detailed lookups after listing, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for filtering or exclusion conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the limit default/max and state format, which adds some value. However, it does not explain what happens when state is omitted, any authentication requirements, or other behavioral nuances such as pagination.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The parameter list is concise and each sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters, and an output schema exists, so return details are covered. The description explains the purpose and parameters well. A minor gap is the lack of explanation for behavior when the state parameter is null, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: state with examples ('CA', 'TX') and limit with default and max values. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) data.' It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_disaster_declarations and get_individual_assistance by focusing specifically on HMGP grants.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that HMGP data is the correct choice based on the name alone.

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

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 discloses that data is aggregated at the county level per disaster and includes housing and other needs assistance. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but as a data retrieval tool, the behavior is adequately 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?

The description is appropriately sized: a clear opening statement followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for a simple retrieval tool. It explains the data type, aggregation level, and all parameters. An output schema exists, so return values need not be elaborated. The context and parameter details are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with examples (e.g., disaster number 4737, state abbreviation 'CA', limit default/max). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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 specifies the tool returns FEMA Individual and Households Program (IHP) assistance data, with a clear verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning IHP and county-level aggregation, which sets it apart from public assistance or disaster declarations.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, the resource type (IHP assistance) makes the intended use clear, so usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the tool returns grant obligations and specifies the types of expenses covered (debris removal, emergency measures, restoration). It also mentions filtering capabilities and default/maximum limits. It does not explicitly state read-only or lack of side effects, but the 'Get' verb implies a safe read operation, and the extra context about grant categories adds value beyond a bare description.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear lead sentence, a brief explanation of what is returned, and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, the type of data included, and filtering options, which is sufficient for an agent to determine when and how to invoke it. The only minor gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but the name and description make that clear.

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 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully documents every parameter with examples and constraints. It explains disaster_number (FEMA disaster number), state (two-letter abbreviation), and limit (default 25, max 1000). This provides complete semantic guidance that the schema itself lacks.

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 begins with 'Get FEMA Public Assistance (PA) grant data for disaster recovery,' which uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the grant type (PA) and includes relevant details about the nature of the grants (e.g., debris removal, infrastructure restoration).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve PA grant data, specifically for disaster recovery. It mentions filtering by disaster number or state, giving usage direction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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