US Disaster Declarations (FEMA) MCP

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait — that results include frequency by incident type, not just a flat list — and the 'PRO' prefix hints at a gated/subscriber-tier tool. However, it says nothing about rate limits, pagination, return size, or what happens when no declarations match.

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 compact sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, and the county format example placed inline where it's needed. The lone 'PRO.' token is cryptic but inexpensive.

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 no output schema and no annotations on a four-parameter tool, the description should do more. It covers the core query semantics and hints at the return shape (frequency by incident type), but omits auth expectations, error/no-result behavior, and any sense of result volume.

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 only 25% (only access_token is documented), so the description must compensate. It partially does: it gives a concrete county format hint ('Harris (County)') and explains that since_year bounds the historical window. State is self-explanatory, but the description doesn't clarify since_year's default behavior or whether the access_token is mandatory for every call.

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 names a specific verb and resource: FEMA declarations for a county in a state since a given year, plus incident-type frequency. This is concrete enough for an agent to know what it returns, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings new_declarations or recent_disasters, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'since a year' and the county focus vaguely imply historical, aggregated analysis rather than recent events, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over new_declarations or recent_disasters.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the default 7-day window and nationwide scope, but omits authentication requirements despite the access_token parameter, pagination behavior, and what a 'new' declaration means. The 'PRO.' prefix is unexplained and likely implies a paid tier but is not clarified.

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 short, but the leading 'PRO.' is cryptic and the audience list does not aid invocation. The operational scope is front-loaded after that, so the core information is easy to find.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter descriptions, the tool definition is missing important context. An agent still does not know what incident_type values are valid, what authentication failure looks like, or how results are structured.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate. It adds a useful default for the days parameter, but it does not explain incident_type at all. The access_token parameter is documented in the schema, so the description adds only partial value.

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 resource and scope: all new disaster declarations nationwide within the last N days. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like recent_disasters or county_history.

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 names intended audiences (restoration contractors, adjusters, insurers, lenders) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus recent_disasters or county_history. The use case is implied only through the audience list.

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; it does disclose the result cap (latest 5) and that county data is included, and 'FREE' signals no paid/auth barrier. It does not state ordering, freshness, error behavior for invalid state codes, or whether results are read-only in any formal sense.

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?

A single compact sentence with the cost flag front-loaded, then resource, scope, categories, and return payload. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (5 most recent declarations with counties) and the domain. Slight gap on ordering/recency semantics and on differentiation from new_declarations keeps it below 5.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('2-letter state, e.g. FL'), so the schema already defines it fully. The description adds only the 'US' qualifier; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb-like resource (latest 5 FEMA disaster declarations), the scoping input (a US state), the disaster categories covered, and the payload (with counties). It is clear what it does, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling new_declarations, which plausibly returns recent declarations too.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this for a state's recent disasters,' and 'FREE' hints at a cost-based preference. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing away from new_declarations or toward county_history for sub-state detail.

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