FEMA Housing Assistance

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, idempotent read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return fields (registrations, damage, approved amounts) and data source (OpenFEMA), but does not disclose further behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.

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 two sentences plus a source attribution. No redundant words; every sentence serves a purpose (what it does, what it returns, utility, source). Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, read-only, idempotent), the presence of annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the query parameters, return content, use case, and data source.

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 three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description repeats 'state and disaster number' but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per rubric, baseline is 3.

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 ('Query') and resource ('federal disaster housing assistance data'), and explicitly lists the parameters (state, disaster number) and return fields (registration counts, average damage, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling FEMA tools like declarations and flood claims by focusing on housing assistance.

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 context ('useful for disaster recovery analysis and aid distribution research') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fema.disaster.declarations) or mention any exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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