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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds light behavioral context by noting 'published related-disaster links' and the exact-id requirement, but it does not reveal output format, missing-id behavior, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations and schema indicate.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the critical usage constraint, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 no output schema, the description adequately indicates the return concept ('related-disaster links'). It covers the key prerequisite (exact event id) and supported packs. It could mention error behavior or output shape, but for a simple read-only resolver with good annotations and schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already thoroughly documents all four parameters. The description adds no significant parameter semantics beyond the schema, though it repeats the supported pack names and exact-id requirement. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 states a specific verb-resource action: 'Resolves one exact disaster event id into its published related-disaster links.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'exact event id' versus broader search, and names supported packs including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, and 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?

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 precondition and implicitly excludes searches without an exact id, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling like search_disaster_links.

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