fema_public_assistance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds scope context (project-level, recipient types) rather than behavioral details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or response format. This adds some value but does not go beyond what annotations and the schema already establish.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the verb and resource; the second expands with recipient type and grant categories. Every word contributes to an agent's understanding.

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 low-complexity tool with four optional, fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It conveys what the tool returns and to whom, but it does not mention result ordering, pagination behavior, or any constraints on disaster_number/state values beyond the schema's scope. Minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, with all four parameters (top, skip, state, disaster_number) already described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the general context of PA grants, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('FEMA Public Assistance (PA) grant awards'), then narrows with 'project-level', eligible entities (state/local/tribal governments, nonprofits), and grant categories (debris removal, emergency work, permanent repair). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fema_housing_assistance and fema_disaster_declarations without needing to name them.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the user needs FEMA PA grant award data. It correctly scopes the tool to project-level government/nonprofit grants, implying it is not for individual housing assistance or disaster declaration metadata. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., fema_query, fema_housing_assistance) or state when not to use it.

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