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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context that the tool is for discovery before having an exact event ID, implying no ID requirement. It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or return format, but the annotation covers the main safety concern.

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 sentences and mostly efficient. The first sentence 'Free linked-disaster discovery helper' is somewhat filler, but the second and third sentences are substantive. No unnecessary detail.

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?

With 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose but does not explain how parameters combine (e.g., direction requires start and end?) or what the response looks like. It is adequate for initial understanding but leaves gaps for an agent deciding on parameter values.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for 100% of the parameters. The description mentions event-type direction, via-event type, and year window, which map to schema parameters, but adds no extra syntax, defaults, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches published cross-disaster link families by event-type direction, optional via-event type, and year window. The verb 'searches' is specific, the resource is defined, and the usage context ('discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id') further clarifies its role.

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,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest level.

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