fema_disaster_declarations

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a specific set of fields and that it covers declarations since 1953, setting temporal scope. It also hints at filtering capabilities. Does not add detail on pagination or response format, but given strong annotations, this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The first sentence identifies resource and scope. The second lists filters. The third lists return fields. The most critical information (resource, scope, filters) is front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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 the tool has zero required parameters, no output schema, and no enums (though incident_type has a list in description), the description supplies enough for an agent to make a basic query and interpret results. Missing details like pagination behavior or specific return formatting are not critical for a read-only search tool with annotations covering safety and quality. It's complete for core usage.

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% (all six parameters have descriptions) and includes defaults and example values. The description adds a summary of what each filter does but doesn't go beyond schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because schema does the heavy lifting, and the description's mention of filter types reinforces usage without adding new semantic detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('FEMA disaster declarations'), and scope ('since 1953'). Clearly lists filter dimensions (state, year, incident type, declaration type) and return fields (disaster name, type, affected area, programs declared). Easily distinguishes from sibling fema_housing_assistance, fema_public_assistance, and fema_query by resource specificity.

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?

Implies usage for searching/filtering disaster declarations, and the description includes the available filter dimensions. No explicit mention of when to use alternative tools like fema_query or fema_housing_assistance, but the resource-specific naming and filter list make the usage context clear. Slight gap: no guidance on when to prefer this over generic fema_query.

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