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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses data sources (USGS, NOAA, GDACS), return fields, and auto-expiration based on source TTL. However, it claims 'Supports filtering by event type, country, region, and lookback window' while the input schema has zero properties, creating ambiguity about how filtering is actually performed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, and every sentence adds value: sources, return data, expiry, and differentiation from the sibling. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers sources, return fields, and TTL, which is helpful given no output schema. However, the unresolved filtering contradiction with the empty schema leaves a significant gap in how the tool is actually invoked, making the description less complete than it appears.

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 schema has 0 parameters, giving a baseline of 4, but the description mentions multiple filtering options that are not reflected in the schema. This adds no useful parameter semantics and instead misleads the agent into thinking filters can be passed as arguments. The description should clarify how filtering works or align with the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('active natural disaster events') and states the supply chain context. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling get_natural_disaster_alerts by explicitly saying it complements it with additional filtering options.

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 names the alternative get_natural_disaster_alerts and differentiates this tool by its extra filtering capabilities (multi-day lookback, region-based geography). While it doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use', the context is sufficient for an agent to choose between the two.

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