Volcano Guide – volcano alert levels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what the response includes: issuing authority, date checked, the authority's own wording, and a citation, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It moves from purpose to examples to return content efficiently.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the purpose, the scope, and the key return components. No critical calling information appears to be missing.

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 schema already documents the single 'volcano' parameter and its accepted spellings. The description's examples (Etna, Vesuvius, Kilauea, Reykjanes) add minor illustrative value but no syntax or format detail beyond the 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 states a precise resource ('current official alert level') and scope ('of one volcano'), with examples that make the expected input concrete. This scope implicitly distinguishes it from list_alert_levels (multiple volcanoes) and alert_level_changes (historical changes).

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?

Usage is implied by 'of one volcano' and 'current', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling tools are not named as alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for a single volcano's current status rather than a list or change history.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are limited to changes (not current state), include both raised and lowered, and are sorted newest first. It omits pagination/limit behavior and what a change record contains.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter detail rather than reflecting deliberate trimming.

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 optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the core intent is conveyed. Gaps remain around the limit default, result shape, and how this differs from `alert_level`/`list_alert_levels`, which an agent would need to choose 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% for the single `limit` parameter, and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no explanation of the cap, default of 20, or max of 100 beyond raw schema constraints. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a concrete resource (alert level changes) with a scope qualifier (most recent, raised or lowered) and an ordering guarantee (newest first). An agent knows exactly what this returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools `alert_level` or `list_alert_levels`, so sibling selection must be inferred.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the two sibling tools are not mentioned at all. The only signal is the implicit 'changes over time' framing, which is not enough to route an agent between this and `list_alert_levels`.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results span all monitored volcanoes and reflect 'current official' levels, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or volume.

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?

A single compact sentence with the primary scope front-loaded and the filter noted after a semicolon. No wasted words, though the brevity comes at the cost of some detail.

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 tool with one optional enum param and no output schema, the description is workable, but it omits sibling differentiation and return-shape expectations, leaving notable gaps for a tool surrounded by related siblings.

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 carries the param burden; it explains that 'level' optionally narrows output to a single level. However it does not clarify the enum values or that omitting the parameter returns everything, though the enum names are largely self-explanatory.

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?

States a clear resource and scope: all monitored volcanoes with their current official alert level. The list/read operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the siblings 'alert_level' or 'alert_level_changes', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'optionally only one level' implies the filtering mode of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to the sibling tools (alert_level for a single volcano, alert_level_changes for history). Usage must be inferred.

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