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

Annotations provide only a title, leaving the description to carry the full burden. The description implies a read-only query by stating 'current disasters worldwide' and does not claim any side effects, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, data freshness, or pagination. It adds the GDACS source and alert levels but no deeper behavioral traits.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose (current disasters from GDACS) and immediately lists disaster types and alert levels, followed by a usage instruction. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response contains. It explains the data source, types, alert levels, and location filtering, but it does not describe the response shape, pagination, or whether results are sorted by severity. This is a clear gap for a no-output-schema tool, though the basics for invocation are covered.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds the context that lat/lon are for asking about a specific location, which aligns with the schema, but it does not provide additional syntax, defaults, or examples beyond what the schema already states. No extra parameter semantics are needed given full coverage.

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 tool lists current disasters from GDACS, enumerating specific disaster types (cyclones, floods, volcanoes, wildfires, earthquakes) and alert levels (green, orange, red). This distinguishes it from the sibling hazards_quakes, which is earthquake-specific, and establishes a clear verb + resource.

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?

"Pass lat/lon to ask about somewhere in particular" provides explicit usage context for location-based filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools like hazards_quakes for earthquake-only queries, so it lacks exclusions but has clear context.

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