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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add meaningful context. It adds provenance ('Data: geodiva.avo.alaska.edu'), access requirements ('no auth required'), and licensing ('US Government public domain'). It also notes the 356-volcano scope and returned fields, which helps set expectations beyond the annotations.

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 each earn their place: one for the resource and filters, one for the return fields, and one for data source/auth/public-domain status. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or tangential text.

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?

The description covers the resource, all optional filter dimensions, returned fields, data source, authentication, and licensing. With an output schema present, return-value details are not needed. Minor gaps such as pagination or default ordering are absent, but this is reasonably complete for a browse/list tool with no required parameters.

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 all four parameters with enums and examples. The description restates the filter categories but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Browse Alaska's 356 volcanoes from the AVO GeoDIVA database.' It also enumerates the optional filters and the exact fields returned, making the list scope clear. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like volcano_detail and eruption_search by emphasizing browsing/filtering a list rather than getting details or eruptions.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool to browse or filter the Alaska volcano list, with optional filters like threat level, age class, monitoring status, or name substring. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the list-vs-detail distinction is strongly implied by the wording.

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