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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds the discovery-oriented behavior ('discover whether a relationship family exists') but doesn't disclose pagination, result ordering, or limitations. This matches the expected baseline when annotations cover safety.

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 only two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the use case in the second. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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's moderate complexity (7 optional parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the discovery scenario and the available filtering dimensions. It does not describe the return value shape, but for a search/discovery helper, the purpose and use case are clearly communicated, leaving only minor gaps.

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 each parameter (limit, year_start, year_end, event types) well-documented. The description's mention of 'event-type direction' and 'year window' aligns with the schema but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Searches published cross-disaster link families by event-type direction, optional via-event type, and optional year window.' It uses a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('link families'), and the context of discovery ('before you have an exact event id') distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_catalog.

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 clear guidance on when to use: 'Use this when you want to discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives breakdown.

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