fema_query

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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description need not repeat it. The description adds the OData $filter support detail, but does not disclose return format, pagination/limit behavior, or per-dataset response variance, which are useful behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and coverage examples following. The trailing 'etc.' and the one-line OData note are slightly loose but not wasteful. It is efficient and scannable without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of explaining what a response looks like, but it never addresses return structure, pagination ($top/$skip semantics are only implied by the schema), or that results vary per dataset. Adequate for selecting the tool, but an agent calling it blindly would not know what shape of result to expect.

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% and the schema descriptions are strong (e.g., filter gives a concrete example, dataset enumerates all keys), so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. The description's mention of OData support is generic and does not deepen parameter semantics; baseline 3 is correct given high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('General-purpose query against any OpenFEMA v2 dataset') and enumerates concrete coverage (NFIP claims/policies, hazard mitigation grants, mission assignments, IHP registrations). This clearly distinguishes it from the specific FEMA siblings (fema_disaster_declarations, fema_housing_assistance, fema_public_assistance, fema_regions) by framing it as the general fallback.

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?

Positive guidance is explicit ('Use this for NFIP... etc.'), which tells an agent which datasets route here. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or when to prefer the specialized fema_* sibling tools, leaving the exclusion logic to inference rather than statement.

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