DaedalMap Tsunami Data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying 'live agent-ready data packs' (implying current, usable items) and 'Free discovery' (suggesting no cost or restrictions), but does not detail rate limits, authentication needs, or response format beyond the list.

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 front-loaded and highly concise with two clear phrases ('Free discovery' and 'Returns the list...'), each earning its place by setting usage context and specifying the output without any wasted words.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is mostly complete by stating the purpose and scope. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of the list) or any limitations, which could be helpful despite the annotations covering safety.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds semantic context by implying no parameters are needed for this discovery operation, aligning with the schema, but does not compensate for any gaps since there are none.

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 specific action ('Returns the list') and resource ('live agent-ready data packs available on DaedalMap'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_earthquake_events or query_dataset by focusing on catalog discovery rather than specific data retrieval or queries.

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 provides clear context for usage ('Free discovery' implies it's for exploring available data packs), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as get_pack for specific pack details.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate that. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema, e.g., mentioning 'free linked-disaster helper' which is vague.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and usage condition.

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?

Covers purpose and usage condition. Missing details about return format, but given no output schema and simple parameters, it is fairly complete. Could mention that the tool is read-only to assure safety.

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 the schema documents all parameters. The description reinforces 'event_id' and implies 'depth' but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Expands' and resource 'disaster event id' into a 'bounded related-event chain'. Differentiates from siblings like 'search_disaster_links' by specifying it requires 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 says 'Use this only when you already have an exact event id' and lists supported packs. Could be more explicit about when to use alternatives like 'search_disaster_links'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds that the tool is a 'helper' and resolves links, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, each adding critical information: what it is, what it does, and when to use it. No wasted words; front-loaded with purpose.

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 simplicity (4 params, no output schema, readOnly annotation), the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it. It could be improved by hinting at output format, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the core parameter (event_id) in context ('resolves one exact disaster event id') and mentions pack_id as a hint for ambiguous IDs. It does not detail cross_type_only or request_id, but the schema already describes them.

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 resolves an exact disaster event ID into published related-disaster links. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing exact ID resolution and listing supported 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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool only when you have an exact event ID from a supported pack, providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, leaving room for fuller guidance.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value with specifics about return content (metadata, coverage, etc.) and reinforces non-destructive nature. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Free discovery', no superfluous words. Efficient and clearly structured.

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 simple interface (1 param, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter description already listing possible pack_ids. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating 'one pack'. 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 it returns detailed metadata, coverage, freshness, tool guidance, and first-query examples for one pack. It distinguishes from siblings: get_catalog (list all packs) and get_tsunami_events (specific pack events).

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 advises 'Call this before querying a new pack' and explains the benefits. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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

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

Description discloses critical behavior beyond readOnlyHint: it's a paid tool that returns HTTP 402 with the price before charging. This is essential for correct agent invocation. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, usage guidance, and payment behavior without redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, description provides enough expectation of return data (historical records, wave-height metrics, specific metrics). Payment workflow is explained. For a moderately complex tool with 6 parameters, the description covers key aspects well.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value with examples (e.g., 'event_count', 'max_water_height_m' for metrics) and usage advice (e.g., narrowing time range for sort-intensive queries). This goes beyond basic schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Queries tsunamis_events for historical tsunami records and wave-height metrics', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (get_catalog, get_pack) by focusing solely on tsunami events, and adds context about metrics and region filters.

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?

Description specifies best use cases ('event counts, max water height thresholds, top-event lookups') and provides filter guidance (ISO3 or XOO region IDs). It also advises on payment workflow ('call without payment first'). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context is clear and helpful.

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

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

The description states 'Searches' and 'discovery helper', aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds context that the tool finds relationship families by event type and year, but does not disclose any potential limitations, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations already provide.

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 at three sentences, with the key technical information in the second sentence and usage guidance in the third. The first sentence ('Free linked-disaster discovery helper') is somewhat superfluous, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the search criteria but does not mention the 'limit' parameter for pagination or 'request_id' for tracing. It also does not describe the return format or what a 'chain' is. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 the schema itself documents each parameter. The description groups parameters conceptually (event-type direction, via-event, year window) but adds no additional detail beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'cross-disaster link families by event-type direction, optional via-event type, and optional year window.' It uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('cross-disaster link families'), and contrasts with sibling tools that require an exact event ID, making its unique purpose apparent.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use this when you want to discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id.' This implies when an event ID is known, a different tool should be used, but it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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