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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about what the events are and what fields are returned, but it does not disclose output structure, pagination, or API-specific behaviors; it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity and followed by practical return details. The second sentence about radiation warnings is mildly tangential for tool invocation but adds useful domain context and does not bloat the description.

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 read-only retrieval tool with 100% parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content and the domain. It could be more complete with explicit sibling differentiation or output-format hints, but nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the structured schema, including defaults and date limits. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource ('SEP events from NASA DONKI') and a concrete verb ('Returns') with the key data fields: event time, detecting instruments, energy channels, and linked flare/CME. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like donki_cme or get_solar_flares by content, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those alternatives.

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 given about when to choose this tool over sibling DONKI tools such as donki_geomagnetic_storms, donki_cme, or get_solar_flares. The domain context (radiation warnings, astronaut EVA holds) implies a use case, but the description leaves the decision entirely to inference.

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