fema_query

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read operation. The description adds OData syntax details but no further behavioral traits like rate limits, response size limits, or error handling. With annotations covering read-only, the description provides moderate added value.

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 sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose, scope, and syntax. No wasted words; front-loaded with the key action.

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 description adequately states purpose and syntax but lacks details on pagination behavior, default result count, response format, or dataset availability. For a general-purpose query tool, this leaves some gaps, making it mediocre in completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with all 6 parameters described. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning OData $filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'General-purpose query against any OpenFEMA v2 dataset' and lists specific examples (NFIP claims, hazard mitigation, etc.). This differentiates it from sibling tools like fema_disaster_declarations which are dataset-specific.

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 advises using the tool for specific dataset types, providing clear positive context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or suggest alternatives for more focused queries, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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