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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety context is covered. The description adds meaningful expected return content (geometry points, coordinates, magnitude, timestamps, categories, data source URLs), which goes beyond the bare annotations and helps the agent know what to expect.

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 three focused sentences: purpose, return content, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the essential action, avoids redundancy, and every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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?

With one required parameter and an output schema available, the description covers all necessary context: what to provide, where to get it, what the tool returns, and example use cases. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description repeats this and adds the same provenance advice as the schema, but does not introduce any additional parameter semantics beyond that, aligning with the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve the full detail record') and the specific resource ('a specific NASA EONET natural disaster event by its EONET event ID'), with a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from the sibling eonet.events.list by focusing on a single event's full detail rather than a list of events.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the required ID ('Obtain EONET IDs from the eonet.events.list tool') and gives concrete use cases ('tracking the full track of a hurricane, the spread of a wildfire, or the progression of a flood'), making it clear when to use this tool.

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