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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses crucial behaviors: events are 'FROZEN at emission — no free text, no generated summary anywhere,' records are structured with severity/confidence and span-grounded sources, and pagination truncation is explained ('truncated=true when more matched'). It also clarifies the 'since' filter semantics relative to emitted_at, which is not fully captured by the schema.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, record structure, filters, usage, and sibling differentiation. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses capitalization and parentheticals for scannability without wasting words.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return record structure, filter semantics, pagination behavior, and the relationship to register_standing_query. The distinction from get_disruptions prevents confusion among 30+ sibling tools. Nothing significant is left unexplained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains 'since (ISO-8601 vs emitted_at — poll with your last poll time),' mentions geo_id and disruption_type, and details 'limit (default 100, max 1000; truncated=true when more matched).' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'list emitted disruption events.' It further clarifies the scope with 'Travel Product B' and explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'get_disruptions' by contrasting their data sources and nature, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Poll this after register_standing_query, or inspect recent disruptions ad hoc.' It also states when not to use it by referencing the alternative: 'Distinct from get_disruptions (US weather/advisory alert feed): this is the corroborated, standing-query travel disruption stream.' This provides both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use.

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