FEMA Housing Assistance

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world semantics. The description adds specific returned fields (registration counts, average damage, etc.), going beyond annotations. No contradiction detected.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, output summary, source. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary information.

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 is complete for a query tool: it lists the key filters (state, disaster number), specifies the returned metrics by county, and cites the data source. An output schema exists but is not needed for understanding.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (state, disaster_number, limit). The description does not add new semantic value beyond what the schema already offers; thus, baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries federal disaster housing assistance data by state and disaster number, listing specific returned metrics. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fema.disaster.declarations' and 'fema.disaster.flood_claims'.

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 notes the tool is useful for disaster recovery analysis and aid distribution research, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, slightly reducing the score.

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