earth.events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that events include 'geo-located observation points and category' but does not describe the full response structure, pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action and source. The first sentence enumerates event types efficiently, the second covers filters. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured for quick consumption.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide richer context. It mentions the source (NASA EONET) and event components, but lacks details on response format, pagination behavior, default values, and constraints like the maximum days of 365. The tool's complexity (5 parameters, no required) warrants more guidance, which is absent.

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 description lists four of five filter parameters (status, days-back, category, bbox) explicitly, adding context for 'days' as 'days-back'. However, it omits 'limit' and does not explain the format or usage of 'bbox' (e.g., coordinate order). The parameter enums for status and category are defined in the schema, so the description adds minimal meaning there. Overall, it partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage but not fully.

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 retrieves 'Active and historical global natural events via NASA EONET v3' and lists many event types (wildfires, storms, volcanoes, etc.). It provides filter categories, making the purpose distinct from some siblings. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'quakes.recent' which might overlap for earthquakes, and it lacks an explicit statement of scope boundaries.

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 suggests usage contexts through event types and filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. No comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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