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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds context about the search dimensions but does not disclose behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or rate limits. It provides some added context beyond annotations but not rich detail.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'Free linked-disaster discovery helper' is slightly ambiguous but does not add bloat. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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 has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and search criteria well. However, it does not describe the return value structure or clarify how 'limit' and 'request_id' affect behavior. Since there is no output schema, the missing return-format detail leaves a noticeable gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all seven parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions event-type direction, via-event type, and year window, which maps to the schema fields, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool 'Searches published cross-disaster link families by event-type direction, optional via-event type, and optional year window.' This is a specific verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from siblings like get_disaster_links_for_event, especially since it mentions discovering relationships before having an exact event id.

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 when you want to discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id.' This provides a clear condition for use and implicitly excludes cases where an event id is already known, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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