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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the discovery-oriented behavior ('discover whether a relationship family exists') and the scoping to event-type direction and year window. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or other operational details. The 'Free' prefix is ambiguous and adds little behavioral clarity.

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 providing distinct value: category ('Free linked-disaster discovery helper'), core functionality (searches by event-type direction and filters), and usage context. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, with no redundant or filler content.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the tool's purpose, filtering dimensions, and use case effectively. It lacks explicit mention of return values or pagination, but the schema documents parameter limits, and the discovery context is sufficiently clear for a search tool.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description summarizes key parameters (event-type direction, via-event type, year window) but does not add meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('published cross-disaster link families'), and specifies the filtering dimensions (event-type direction, via-event type, year window). It also distinguishes from siblings by positioning this as a discovery tool for when you lack an exact event id, contrasting with tools like get_disaster_links_for_event.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: 'Use this when you want to discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id.' This gives a clear context for use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity against siblings.

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