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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the read-only safety profile. The description adds a little context (exact event id, published links) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like auth, rate limits, or output format. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage restriction. No filler, no repetition of schema details.

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 simple read-only resolver with 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate: it names the input condition and supported packs. It could more explicitly distinguish from get_disaster_link_chain or describe return shape, but these are not essential gaps.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that event_id must be exact and from a supported pack, but this largely repeats schema text rather than adding new meaning.

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 a specific verb ('resolves') and resource ('one exact disaster event id into its published related-disaster links'), with a scope boundary ('supported pack such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, or wildfires'). This distinguishes it from broader search/list sibling tools like search_disaster_links.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this only when you already have an exact event id from a supported pack.' This is clear context and a restriction, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other cases.

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