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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'feeds globe' implying live data, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or the nature of the response. It also doesn't explain the effect of the 'q' parameter on behavior, leaving the agent without crucial operational details.

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 a single sentence, appropriately concise. However, it opens with 'Disasters (GDACS)' which redundantly repeats the tool title, wasting the front-loaded position. The core information about disaster types and global scope is present but not structured to emphasize the most actionable 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 tool with one optional parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the 'q' parameter, leaving a gap that the schema cannot fill (0% coverage). Although an output schema exists, the description gives no hint of what the response contains, and there is no mention of alternatives or usage context, making the tool less safe to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 'q' parameter. It does not. The description mentions 'feeds globe' but gives no clue that 'q' might filter disasters by location, keyword, or type. With no explanation, the agent cannot confidently construct a query.

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 the tool returns active worldwide disasters from GDACS, listing specific types (quakes, cyclones, floods). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'quakes' (specific) and 'weatheralerts' by covering multiple disaster types globally. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', relying on the noun phrase 'Active worldwide disasters' to imply the action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as 'quakes' and 'weatheralerts' likely overlap, but the description does not mention them or any conditions for choosing this tool. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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