get_natural_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves event data (read operation), explains the meaning of status (open/closed), and mentions coordinate and timestamp output. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but as a read-only tool, this is acceptable.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a bullet list of parameters with explanations. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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?

Given 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all input semantics and mentions return format (coordinates and timestamps). It is complete for the tool's complexity, though an explicit output schema or example would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate entirely. It provides full semantics for all 4 parameters: category values list, status options, days as time range, and limit with default and maximum. This far exceeds the schema's minimal type info.

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 current natural events worldwide using EONET, with specific categories like wildfires, volcanoes, storms, etc. It is a specific verb+resource combination and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (space/NASA topics).

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 explains parameter usage (category, status, days, limit) and provides default values and constraints. It implies the tool is for retrieving natural events but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Since sibling tools are unrelated, this is sufficient.

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