fema_housing_assistance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the data content (approved amounts, inspections, damage) but does not disclose potential behavior such as pagination, rate limits, or the need for a disaster number to return meaningful results. Since annotations cover the safety aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and data content. It is concise without redundancy, though it could be slightly better structured (e.g., separating the data types) but remains 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?

The tool has five optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not clarify how to combine parameters or what happens when no filters are given (e.g., returns all IHP data? likely requires a disaster number). It also does not mention the response format. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the lack of an output schema, more guidance would be helpful, but it is not severely incomplete.

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 five parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add further parameter details, such as how parameters interact (e.g., whether disaster_number is expected to be provided) or formatting requirements. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already documents parameters fully.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'FEMA Individual Housing Program (IHP) assistance data', and the scope: for homeowners, with county/zip filtering for a disaster. It also lists what it shows (approved amounts, inspections, damage), making it distinguishable from siblings like fema_public_assistance or fema_disaster_declarations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other FEMA tools. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., fema_public_assistance) or conditions that would select this over them. The intended use is only implied by the data type (IHP), leaving the agent to infer when it is the right choice.

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