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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds the adjective 'bounded' to clarify the chain is limited in depth, and 'Free' might hint at no authentication or cost, but it is ambiguous. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description adds value by noting the exact-id requirement and boundedness, but it does not disclose much more about behavior (e.g., response format, error handling).

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 and front-loaded with the key action. Every phrase earns its place: 'Free' is a minor label, 'bounded' clarifies behavior, and the usage condition is concise. No unnecessary 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 that the schema is rich with parameter details and the tool is relatively simple, the description provides enough to understand its core purpose and usage context. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the returned chain looks like or what 'bounded' means precisely (e.g., max depth is in schema but not described here). It is adequate but has gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the tool family.

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 5 parameters have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only echoing the 'exact event id' and 'supported pack' concepts already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter 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 the tool's function: expanding an exact disaster event id into a bounded related-event chain. It uses a specific verb ('expands') and specifies the resource (disaster event id), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on chain expansion rather than simple lookup or search.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this only when you already have an exact event id from a supported pack.' This provides a clear condition and exclusion. It does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the conditional phrasing implies there are other tools for cases where you do not have an exact id. This is good guidance, though not exhaustive.

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