fema_housing_assistance

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the types of data returned (approved assistance amounts, inspections, damage by county/zip), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not disclose rate limits or pagination, but that is not critical for a read-only query tool with an annotation covering safety.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys scope, audience, and data content without repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the return content (approved amounts, inspections, damage). It covers the tool's purpose and key filters (by county/zip and disaster). It lacks guidance on pagination or relationships to other FEMA tools, but the schema covers parameters and the read-only annotation provides safety 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 5 parameters, so the input schema already fully documents top, skip, state, county, and disaster_number. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning 'disaster' and county/zip, which are already represented in the schema.

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 'Get FEMA Individual Housing Program (IHP) assistance data for homeowners' and specifies the scope (homeowners) and key content (approved amounts, inspections, damage by county/zip for a disaster). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fema_public_assistance, which targets a different assistance program.

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 implies usage for fetching homeowner housing assistance data for a disaster, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as fema_disaster_declarations or fema_public_assistance. It does not name alternatives or mention exclusions, so the guidance remains implicit.

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