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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read operation, and the description adds context by revealing it is a wrapper around an external WFS service, returning preliminary updates normalized to DaedalMap fields. This informs the agent about the data's provisional nature and external dependency beyond the annotation.

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 redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose ('Free live wrapper') and quickly moves to the external source and normalization, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a read-only live data tool with a fully documented schema, the description adequately covers the external source, the data's preliminary nature, and its relationship to the canonical lane. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the exact return structure or pagination behavior, but the mention of 'normalized to DaedalMap event fields' gives a useful hint.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-specific details beyond the schema, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 identifies the tool as fetching live volcano events via the Smithsonian/GVP WFS, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('live volcano events'). It also distinguishes itself from the canonical/enriched history lane, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_volcanic_activity.

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 clear context that this is a 'free live wrapper' for preliminary updates and explicitly states what it is not: 'not the enriched canonical history lane.' This implies the alternative use case (canonical data) without naming a specific sibling tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not explanation.

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