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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: events are structured and frozen, severity and confidence ranges are specified, sources are span-grounded, and truncated=true signals pagination limits. No contradiction with 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 dense but every sentence adds operational value: purpose, record structure, filter semantics, polling workflow, and sibling differentiation. It is front-loaded with the core action and product context, and no filler is present.

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, yet the description covers record shape, field semantics, filter behavior, pagination, and the intended workflow. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 0%, but the description documents all four parameters: since with ISO-8601 and emitted_at comparison semantics, geo_id, disruption_type, and limit with default, max, and truncation behavior. It 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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('emitted disruption events' for Travel Product B), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_disruptions feed. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from similar 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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: poll after register_standing_query, or inspect recent disruptions ad hoc. It also names the get_disruptions alternative and clarifies that this tool is the corroborated, standing-query travel stream, not the US weather/advisory feed.

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