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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the return format (plain text with HTML stripped, plus optional original HTML), the public-domain/no-auth nature, and that data is updated as notices are issued. Nothing contradicts 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. It is slightly repetitive about sourcing volcano_id from the catalog/monitored tools, but every sentence otherwise contributes useful context about format, content, and availability.

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 a single parameter, a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough supplementary context: data source, update cadence, no-auth access, and return format. No critical calling information 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single volcano_id parameter and already provides examples and source tools. The description merely repeats 'Use with volcano_id from volcano.monitored or volcano.us_catalog,' adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Get'), a precise resource ('text of the most recent official notice'), and a clear scope ('for a specific US volcano'). It also differentiates the tool by noting the standardized USGS notice format, which separates it from sibling catalog/status tools.

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 workflow context by directing the agent to obtain volcano_id from volcano.monitored or volcano.us_catalog, and it implies use when the latest official notice text is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling alert tools like volcano.alerts.cap, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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