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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nuance that it resolves to 'published' links and is free, but it does not disclose behavior for ambiguous IDs (where pack_id is needed) or error handling for nonexistent IDs. This adds some context but does not go beyond annotations significantly, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a usage constraint. It is concise and skimmable. The word 'Free' is a minor distraction, but overall it is well-structured and efficient. Not quite a 5 because 'Free' is not strictly necessary, but it is not vague or bloated.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), full schema coverage, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the core functional context: what it does, when to use it, and the input constraints. It does not explicitly state return format or error behavior, but since there is no output schema, the mention of 'related-disaster links' gives a reasonable expectation. This is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 all four parameters are documented. The description reinforces that the event_id must be exact and that supported packs include earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, and wildfires, which adds slight semantic context. However, it does not introduce new information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is used.

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 identifies the tool as resolving an exact disaster event id into its published related-disaster links. It specifies a concrete verb ('resolves') and resource ('related-disaster links'), and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing the requirement of an exact event id from specific packs.

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?

It provides a clear when-to-use condition: 'Use this only when you already have an exact event id from a supported pack.' This implicitly excludes cases where the id is not exact or the pack is unsupported, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., search_disaster_links for fuzzy lookup). Thus, it has clear context but lacks explicit alternatives, giving a 4.

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