disaster_alerts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine context by naming the GDACS source and explaining the Green/Orange/Red modelled-impact scheme, but it omits whether this is a live feed and how often it refreshes, whether results are globally scoped or filterable, and any permission or rate-limit characteristics.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and its hazard taxonomy front-loaded; the parenthetical enumeration and severity scale both earn their space. It is efficient, though the missing verb leaves the opening slightly less action-oriented than it could be.

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?

Output schema is present, so return-value shape need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-optional-param listing. Still missing is any treatment of the 'detail' parameter or any signal separating this feed from the numerous other disaster-related siblings, which leaves an agent without enough to route confidently.

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?

There is one parameter, 'detail' (default 'short'), with 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no indication of what values are accepted or what the parameter actually changes about the response, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names the specific resource (GDACS severity-scored global disasters), enumerates the hazard classes covered, and explains the Green/Orange/Red scoring basis in a single front-loaded phrase. The only weakness is the absent verb — 'list' versus 'get alerts' is implied rather than stated — and no explicit differentiation from related siblings such as relief_disasters, fema_disasters, tropical_cyclones, or volcanoes.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus the many overlapping disaster siblings (relief_disasters, fema_disasters, tropical_cyclones, volcanoes, fire_perimeters). With no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no stated prerequisites, an agent must infer placement from the name alone.

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