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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read operation, the description adds the discovery-oriented scope and the ability to search without exact event IDs. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits, so it provides only moderate context beyond annotations.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences. It opens with the purpose, states the search criteria, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 clearly conveys purpose and usage context, and the schema fully documents all seven optional parameters. However, without an output schema, the description does not specify what the tool returns or the format of results, which is a notable gap for a discovery 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% with descriptive parameter explanations, setting a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the roles of event-type direction, via-event type, and year window but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb 'Searches' and identifies the resource as 'published cross-disaster link families', with clear scope via event-type direction, via-event type, and year window. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_disaster_links_for_event by emphasizing discovery before having an exact event ID.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you want to discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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