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 description does not need to restate safety. It adds some context by naming the return fields and filter dimensions, but it does not disclose behavior like whether filters combine as AND/OR, pagination semantics, or what 'Recent' means in terms of a default time window.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists both filters and return fields. Every phrase contributes information, with no filler or repetition of the tool name or title.

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, together with a fully documented input schema, gives an agent enough to invoke the tool and know what to expect in the response. Minor gaps exist around filter combination semantics and the meaning of 'Recent', but these are not critical for basic correct usage of a read-only lookup tool.

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%, so each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds little beyond naming the filter categories, which partially reinforces the schema but does not provide extra detail such as date format expectations or county name matching behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 returns recent FEMA disaster declarations and enumerates the filter dimensions (state, county, incident type, date range) and output fields. It is specific about resource and function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like disaster_history_summary or disaster_recovery_profile.

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 phrase 'filtered by state, county, incident type, or date range' implies when to use the tool: when a caller needs recent disaster declarations matching those criteria. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, leaving alternatives unaddressed.

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