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.