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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It describes the tool as a 'discovery helper' and mentions optional filtering, but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, authentication, or return behavior beyond what is implied.

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 concise: two sentences covering the core functionality and usage context. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Searches' and efficiently conveys the main point without redundancy.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the primary use case but does not explain expected output format or how results are structured. For a search tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not add new semantic information. It reiterates the parameters already documented, such as 'event-type direction' and 'via-event type', but no additional detail is provided.

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 states the tool's purpose: searching cross-disaster link families by event-type direction, via-event type, and year window. It distinguishes from siblings (get_catalog, get_pack, query_dataset) by emphasizing discovery before having an exact event id, making it distinct.

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 says 'Use this when you want to discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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