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

The annotations already declare `destructiveHint: true`, so the agent knows the tool may have side effects. The description does not add any behavioral context (e.g., what exactly is destructive, rate limits, or auth requirements), nor does it contradict the annotations. It focuses on content returned rather than behavioral traits.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose sentence, content list, then usage guidance. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the contents of the response (safety warnings, steps, contacts, checklist), and the recommended usage context. It does not explain return format or error handling, but those are not critical given the simple nature and strong annotations.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter `damage_type`. The description adds context that the damage is likely water/fire and in Philadelphia, but this is not essential beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds only marginal semantic 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 verb ('returns'), resource ('prioritized emergency action steps'), and geographic/contextual scope ('active water or fire damage in Philadelphia'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like `assess_damage` and `estimate_cost` by focusing on emergency response.

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 an explicit 'when to use' directive: 'Use this tool FIRST when a homeowner has an active emergency.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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