DaedalMap Tsunami Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's focus on 'Returns the list' does not contradict that or add much beyond the annotation. The phrase 'live agent-ready data packs' adds context about what data is available, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or response structure.

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 a single, clear sentence that communicates purpose and key context ('Free discovery', 'live agent-ready data packs') without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description adequately states what it returns and the domain (DaedalMap). There is no output schema, but the return type ('list') is stated. Combined with the sibling context, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema already documents this fully (schema description coverage 100%), and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('list of live agent-ready data packs available on DaedalMap'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_pack and query_dataset. The 'Free discovery' phrase clarifies it's a zero-cost listing operation.

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 implies use for discovering available data packs ('Free discovery'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pack or query_dataset. It provides some contextual hint but lacks explicit when-to-use or 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.

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already declared. The description adds context about requiring an exact event id and producing a bounded chain, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format, what 'bounded' means beyond the depth parameter, or any edge-case behavior. With the annotation covering safety, the description provides some additional value but not rich behavioral context.

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 brief and front-loads the core action: 'Expands one exact disaster event id into a bounded related-event chain.' It includes a usage guideline in the same breath. The opening 'Free linked-disaster helper' is slightly vague and could confuse, but it does not distract significantly. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, though not as tight as a pure two-sentence example.

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 no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it also does not hint at the structure of the 'chain' (e.g., nested events or flat list). The schema and annotations are thorough for parameters and safety, but the description is missing guidance on what the response looks like or any edge cases (ambiguous ids, depth behavior). This leaves some gaps for a tool that returns a possibly complex chain.

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 clearly described, including examples and defaults (e.g., event_id mentions 'NOAA-SIG-2', cross_type_only explains default true). The tool description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, mentioning 'supported pack' which is also in pack_id. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage; the description does not meaningfully add parameter semantics.

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: 'Expands one exact disaster event id into a bounded related-event chain.' It specifies the resource (exact disaster event id), the action (expands), and the output (bounded related-event chain). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it requires an exact id, unlike search_disaster_links, and by focusing on chain expansion rather than direct links.

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 a clear usage condition: 'Use this only when you already have an exact event id from a supported pack...' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases where an exact id is lacking, nor does it state when not to use it in relation to siblings like search_disaster_links or get_disaster_links_for_event.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the read-only safety profile. The description adds a little context (exact event id, published links) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like auth, rate limits, or output format. 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?

Two tight sentences: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage restriction. No filler, no repetition of schema details.

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?

For a simple read-only resolver with 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate: it names the input condition and supported packs. It could more explicitly distinguish from get_disaster_link_chain or describe return shape, but these are not essential 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%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that event_id must be exact and from a supported pack, but this largely repeats schema text rather than adding new meaning.

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 a specific verb ('resolves') and resource ('one exact disaster event id into its published related-disaster links'), with a scope boundary ('supported pack such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, or wildfires'). This distinguishes it from broader search/list sibling tools like search_disaster_links.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this only when you already have an exact event id from a supported pack.' This is clear context and a restriction, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other cases.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful context about what will be returned (metadata, coverage, freshness, examples). It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects, but none appear necessary for this read-only discovery tool.

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 compact, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Free discovery'). Each sentence contributes value: the first states what it returns, the second tells when and why to call it.

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 a single parameter, full schema coverage, and a read-only annotation, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It explains the output categories and the recommended usage scenario, though it stops short of detailing exact return fields or potential edge cases.

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 already documents pack_id sufficiently. The description adds context that the pack is identified from get_catalog, but does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 returns detailed metadata, coverage, freshness, canonical tool guidance, and first-query examples for one pack. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_catalog by emphasizing 'one pack' and positioning itself as a pre-query discovery step.

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 gives explicit guidance to call this tool before querying a new pack, explaining the value (time shape, coverage limits, paste-ready first query). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the directive is clear and contextually sufficient.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the tool returns refusals, access limits, provenance fields, and a shared interaction contract. This provides substantial insight into the tool's behavior and the nature of its responses.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then lists specific output types and usage instructions, achieving maximum information density.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, input source, and the types of information returned. It is comprehensive and leaves no critical 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?

The input schema already fully documents the sole parameter, tool_name, specifying it must be an exact name from tools/list. The description reinforces this workflow but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already covers.

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: providing guidance for using another tool on the MCP facade. It enumerates specific outputs (when to use, refusals, example, limits, etc.), making it distinct from sibling data-access tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: call this before working with an unfamiliar tool, and use tools/list to discover tool names. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it, but the context strongly implies it is only for unfamiliar tools.

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 readOnlyHint annotation is supplemented by the description's key behavioral disclosures: this is a paid tool requiring payment, and the server returns HTTP 402 with the exact USDC price before charging. It also flags deprecated ID usage (XOO). These go beyond annotations and are crucial for correct invocation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose and payment requirement, and each of the four sentences adds a distinct piece of information without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (6 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, use cases, payment behavior, and filter specifics. It hints at returned metrics (water-height/runup) but does not detail return structure or pagination beyond the limit parameter. Slight gap but adequate overall.

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 schema already covers all 6 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context for filters (ISO3 vs. IHO ids, deprecation) and reinforces the limit tip about narrowing time range before sorting. This extra semantic value raises it above baseline.

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 queries tsunamis_events for historical tsunami records and water-height/runup metrics, with explicit use cases (event counts, max water height thresholds, top-event lookups). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_disaster_link_chain and get_catalog by being the 'canonical' paid tool for tsunami 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?

The description provides specific when-to-use guidance (event counts, max water height, top-event lookups) and detailed filter usage (ISO3 country ids, IHO named-water loc_ids, deprecation of XOO). It also explains the payment workflow (call without payment, receive 402 with exact price). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the use-case framing is sufficient.

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 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.