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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the data scope (2000 onwards, past disasters) but does not introduce additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response pagination) beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core action and temporal scope, the second lists filters and return types. No superfluous words, essential information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (context indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return structure. It adequately covers required inputs, data source, and purpose. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention that results are a list, but 'Returns past disasters' implies a list, making it sufficient.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The description lists the filter categories (date range, event type, country, alert level) but adds no semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as querying the GDACS historical disaster archive from 2000 onwards, listing filters (date range, event type, country, alert level) and return types (earthquakes, cyclones, floods, volcanoes). It distinctly implies a historical focus, differentiating it from sibling tools like gdacs.disasters.alerts (current alerts) and gdacs.disasters.details (specific disaster details).

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 specifies the tool is for historical analysis ('from 2000 onwards') and lists available filters, providing clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., not for live alerts) or name alternative tools, though the historical nature implies differentiation from alert and detail endpoints.

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