Get detailed information about a specific disaster event. Returns event data including location, severity, affected population, and timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventId | Yes | Numeric event identifier from GDACS | |
| eventType | Yes | Event type code: EQ (Earthquake), TC (Tropical Cyclone), FL (Flood), VO (Volcano), WF (Wildfire), DR (Drought) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned (location, severity, affected population, timeline) without mentioning side effects, error behavior, data freshness, external API calls, or any limitations. For a read tool, some baseline safety is assumed, but the lack of explicit behavioral context is a gap.
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 a single sentence that starts with the action and resource, then briefly lists the key returned data fields. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is effectively structured and immediately scannable.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the response contains. It lists several return fields but does not explain the full response structure or why both eventType and eventId are required. It also lacks context on how this tool fits with siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent unfamiliar with the domain.
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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (eventId, eventType), giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as how eventType and eventId interact or the format of eventType codes. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific disaster event.' This directly distinguishes it from siblings like get_active_disasters or get_recent_alerts, which list events rather than fetch details for a single identified event. The mention of 'specific' event is a strong differentiator.
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 implies usage when a user needs details for a known event, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_events or get_active_disasters. There is no direct exclusion or comparison with sibling tools, so the guidance is only implied through the phrase 'specific disaster event.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct: get_event_data retrieves a single event, search_events lists events with filters, and reference tools like get_alert_level_info and get_event_types are obviously different. However, get_active_disasters, get_recent_alerts, and search_events have some overlap in returning lists of events, though their descriptions clarify the specific time-based or filter-based focus.
Seven of eight tools follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern (get_active_disasters, get_event_data, etc.), making them predictable. The single deviation is search_events, which omits the 'get_' prefix but still uses a clear verb-noun structure.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a disaster information API. Each tool serves a distinct query purpose—reference data, single-event details, list queries, and statistics—without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core read-only operations expected for this domain: listing active/recent events, searching with filters, fetching details, retrieving by country, and accessing reference data (alert levels, event types) plus statistics. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for a query-focused API.
