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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the upstream providers (USGS/NWS/GDACS), that results include distances, and the per-call price of $0.003 USDC via x402, which is important operational detail an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs source list, hazard taxonomy, distance output, and cost with almost no waste. The nested parentheses make it dense to parse, but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a 5-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema tool, the description omits how location should be supplied (lat/lon pair vs. place name), what happens when no location is given, whether radius_km applies to all hazard sources, and any sense of the response shape. The safety and cost aspects are covered, but the location-input gap is significant for a geo 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 coverage is 60%: days, near, and radius_km are documented in the schema but lat and lon are bare. The description hints at the 'near' parameter with 'near a place' but says nothing about lat/lon formatting, coordinate expectations, or what radius_km interacts with. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial 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 names a specific resource (hazard alerts) and enumerates concrete data sources and hazard types: USGS earthquakes, NWS alerts, and GDACS disasters (cyclones, floods, wildfires, volcanoes, droughts). That is far more precise than a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from weather or airquality siblings, which is the only gap.

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?

'Hazard alerts near a place' implies the spatial-lookup use case, so usage is inferable. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the weather, airquality, or news siblings, and no statement about whether lat/lon or the 'near' string is preferred.

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