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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by listing data sources, mentioning 'Events auto-expire based on source TTL,' and describing filtering capabilities. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or rate limits, but the 'Get' verb and the described mechanics give reasonable transparency.

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 efficiently packed into four sentences, each earning its place. It starts with the main purpose, then adds sources, output fields, TTL behavior, filtering, and sibling differentiation—no filler or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields (event type, severity, location, coordinates, affected country). It also covers sources, TTL, filtering, and the relationship to a sibling. It doesn't address pagination, rate limits, or error handling, but given the moderate complexity, this is a solid coverage.

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 input schema has zero properties, leaving the description as the only source for parameter understanding. It explicitly enumerates filtering by event type, country, region, and lookback window, adding meaning beyond the empty schema. However, the lack of types or formats and the mismatch with the empty schema prevent a perfect score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get active natural disaster events that may impact supply chain operations.' It goes further to state sources (USGS, NOAA, GDACS) and explicitly names a complementary sibling, get_natural_disaster_alerts, which clearly distinguishes its role.

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 phrase 'Complements get_natural_disaster_alerts with additional filtering options' directly signals when to prefer this tool over a specific alternative. It also provides context via sources and return fields. However, it does not explicitly discuss exclusions or other alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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