fema_disasters

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 does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what recency window applies, how often the data updates, or whether results are paginated or limited.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized in form, though it leaves important gaps that are better attributed to other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits the sole parameter's meaning and does not distinguish this tool from relief_disasters. For a tool in a crowded disaster-information namespace, that leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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 single 'detail' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a default of 'short', but the description never mentions it or what values it accepts. An agent cannot infer what changing 'detail' does.

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 clearly states the resource and a scope: recent FEMA disaster declarations across US states and territories. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic alerting tools, but it does not differentiate from the confusable sibling relief_disasters.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus relief_disasters, disaster_alerts, or incident_history. The word 'recent' implies a time scope, but no alternative or exclusion criteria are given.

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