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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds genuinely useful context about the self-hosted index, the live official-API fallback, and the source-freshness return field. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences convey the source, fallback behavior, filtering options, and return content with no filler. The key resource and source are front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 moderate read-only tool with zero required parameters and a fully documented schema, the description is complete: it covers the data source, fallback behavior, filtering axes, and the nature of returned fields. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing the return concepts, while annotations cover safety and data openness.

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 already documents all six parameters at 100% coverage, including defaults and examples, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The high-level 'filter by state, county, incident type, or date range' restates what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource (FEMA disaster declarations), the data source (LiveDataLink OpenFEMA index with official API fallback), and the filtering/return behavior. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'search', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as disaster_history_summary.

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 implies when to use the tool by listing filter dimensions: state, county, incident type, and date range. It gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer a sibling tool such as disaster_history_summary, disaster_recovery_profile, or hurricane_tracker.

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