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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces and expands on these by stating that it returns 'every county/municipality designated under the declaration' – aligning with the openWorldHint (complete results) – and lists the specific data returned (programs activated, incident period, state info). It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and parameter, the second describes the return content, and the third provides routing guidance. The most critical information (what it fetches) is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 does not need to detail return formats, but it still summarizes the key return elements. It explains how to obtain the required parameter and how the result chains to other tools. For a read-only single-parameter fetch with annotations covering safety and completeness, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the single parameter, including its type, example, and source. The description repeats the example and the source ('Use fema_search_disasters to find disaster numbers') without adding any new semantic meaning for the input parameter itself. The chaining mention relates to the output, not the input. Thus 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('designated-area rows'), and a specific identifier ('disaster number'), making the purpose unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from siblings like fema_search_disasters (search vs. fetch) and the assistance tools (general details vs. specific assistance programs). No other tool does exactly this.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use fema_search_disasters to find disaster numbers, providing a clear path for obtaining the required input. It also indicates that this tool is the entry point for further chaining to fema_get_public_assistance and fema_get_housing_assistance, which helps the agent choose the right tool for follow-up queries. This is explicit when-to-use guidance.

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