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 the exact-id requirement and confirms it returns published links, but does not cover edge cases like missing ids or response format. This is acceptable since the read-only nature is already annotated.

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, front-loaded with the core function and then a clear usage condition. Every sentence contributes; the only minor fluff is 'Free' but it does not detract from overall efficiency.

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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and a readOnly annotation, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. The lack of output schema is not critical here because the return value is conceptually simple ('links').

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 all four parameters described, including pack_id's role for ambiguity and cross_type_only's default. The description adds context about the exact event id but does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 resolves one exact disaster event id into its published related-disaster links, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the exact-id requirement and naming supported packs (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, wildfires).

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 only when you already have an exact event id from a supported pack', giving a clear condition and exclusions. It does not name alternatives but the supported-pack list and 'only when' wording provide sufficient guidance for selection.

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