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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it is an unofficial, independent actor not affiliated with the source publisher, and mentions a per-call cost. This provides some context beyond annotations, but does not disclose specifics about what actions are dispatched or how the routing behaves. 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?

The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides a disclaimer and pricing. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

While the input schema is rich with parameter descriptions and contextual notes (e.g., mapping AFAD events to assets), the top-level description lacks an explanation of the output format or the nature of the 'actions' produced. There is no output schema, so a bit more context would help. However, the schema's own description mitigates some gaps, so this is minimally adequate.

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 the input schema fully documents all 11 parameters and their semantics. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable when schema coverage is complete. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Turn official AFAD events into distance-based asset and route actions' clearly identifies the verb (turn), resource (official AFAD events), and output (distance-based asset and route actions). This distinguishes it from sibling scorer tools, which focus on scoring destinations and demand rather than operational routing.

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 implies usage for processing AFAD earthquake event data into asset/route actions, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of alternative tools or conditions under which this tool should not be used.

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