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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional burden is lower. The description adds value by emphasizing exact matching, explicitly requested companion layers, and the prerequisite relationship to get_data, which helps set operational expectations beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides the essential operational prerequisite. Every word contributes to selection or invocation.

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 a complete input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the one critical missing operational detail: where to obtain a valid event_id. The tool is complex enough that a bit more about default lightweight behavior could help, but the schema already covers include and defaults, so no significant gap remains.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters, defaults, enums, and constraints. The description does not need to restate these details; it adds modest alignment by mentioning the layer categories, but no substantial parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('one exact disaster event'), and the optional companion layers. It clearly differentiates from get_data, get_catalog, and get_pack by focusing on single-event retrieval rather than listing or fetching event_id sources.

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 instructs the agent to use get_data first to obtain the stable event_id, which is the key prerequisite for correct invocation. It does not exhaustively state when not to use get_event versus every sibling, but the prerequisite guidance and exact-event framing make the intended use context clear.

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