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.