usas_list_disaster_codes

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that the tool returns the complete code set with no pagination, details the fields per code (group, title, publicLaw), and includes an honest note about null groups and exact totalAvailable. This provides comprehensive behavioral insight.

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 paragraph that is well-structured and concise. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, return details, and honesty note. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (code, group, title, publicLaw), the completeness of the set, and the context of DEFCs. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly does not need to explain parameters. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description instead focuses on the return structure, adding 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 clearly states the tool lists Disaster Emergency Fund Codes (DEFC), specifies what they are (supplemental-appropriation tags), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool usas_disaster_spending by mentioning it filters on these codes. The verb 'list' and resource 'disaster codes' are precise.

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 tells when to use: 'Use this to discover the codes to pass to usas_disaster_spending.' This provides clear context for usage. It does not mention when not to use, but the guidance is strong for the intended use case.

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