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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds that it is based on a 'self-hosted OpenFEMA index' and includes 'source freshness,' but it does not reveal other behaviors such as caching, pagination, or potential rate limits. This is a moderate contribution on top of 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the dataset, aggregation dimensions, geographic scope, and source freshness. Some phrases like 'LiveDataLink's self-hosted' may be ancillary, but the sentence is otherwise tightly packed and free of significant 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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for explaining the response shape. It hints that data is 'bucketed by incident type and year' and includes 'source freshness,' but does not specify what metrics appear (counts, amounts, dates, etc.) or any coverage/formation exclusions. For a three-parameter read tool, it is adequate, but an agent can optionally guess at the return structure and the exact meaning of 'summary.'

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 already describes all three parameters with their own descriptions and defaults (e.g., 'Lookback window in years (default 10)'). The description only restates 'for a state or county' which adds no meaningful semantic beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies a multi-year FEMA disaster summary from a specific data source, scoped to state/county and aggregated by incident type and year. It is distinguishable from siblings like disaster_declarations and disaster_recovery_profile, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly name an alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related disaster_declarations or disaster_recovery_profile, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the purpose phrase, with no practical routing hints for an agent.

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