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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful contextual behavior: it explains that PA projects exist only when the PA program is declared, which is a non-obvious condition that affects result availability. It also clarifies the output's focus on obligated amounts. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 total: the first states purpose and return fields, the second gives selection guidance, the third adds a scoping condition. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

With an output schema present and all parameters documented, the description fills the remaining gaps: when to use this tool vs alternatives, the mutual exclusivity constraint, and the PA declaration prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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% with per-parameter descriptions, yet the description adds the critical constraint that exactly one of disaster_number or state must be provided (a mutual exclusivity not encoded in the schema) and explains the intent of each selector. This is substantial added meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve'), a resource ('Public Assistance funded project records'), and its scope ('for a disaster or state'). It lists the returned fields and clearly differentiates from siblings by naming fema_search_disasters and explaining the PA program condition. This is unambiguous.

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 says 'Either disaster_number or state must be provided' and gives when-to-use guidance for each parameter: disaster_number to scope to a single declaration, state to browse all projects. It also notes the prerequisite that PA must be declared (pa_declared: true), which is a key usage constraint.

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