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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 30-day trailing window, the ~140-event baseline, 1.5x weighting for high-impact categories, and daily updates. It also implies a read-only scoring operation without contradicting the annotation, though it does not discuss rate limits or failure behavior.

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 front-loaded with the primary result, then packs the scoring methodology, output components, and use cases into a dense but efficient paragraph. Every clause contributes information; no filler or repetition exists.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing all relevant output fields (trend, confidence, top_drivers, per-category counts, recent events). It also covers data source, update frequency, baseline reference, and the optional history behavior described in the schema, making the tool's behavior sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'days' parameter, including its purpose (history series), limits (1-1825), and tier restriction (Gold). The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not meaningfully extend the schema explanation.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a 0-100 global natural-hazard activity score' using open NASA EONET events, and enumerates the exact output components (trend, confidence, top_drivers, per-category counts, recent events). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by its unique scope and calculation basis.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call when the user asks how many disasters are active now, whether hazard activity is abnormal, or which category drives it, or when timing supply-chain, insurance, or continuity decisions sensitive to global disaster load.' It provides clear usage context but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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