Buscar eventos de riesgo del SGR

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the data comes from a live feed and is recency-limited, with no historical coverage. It omits freshness latency, pagination, and any rate/auth constraints, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, zero padding, with the scope definition and content examples front-loaded before the sibling redirect. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 filtered search tool with a full output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies scope, content types, and the key exclusion. Remaining gaps (freshness window semantics, result volume/pagination behavior) are minor and partly covered by the limit parameter.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented with examples and defaults. The description's mention of event types and location/status fields loosely maps to the evento, canton/provincia, and estado filters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search SGR risk events), narrows scope to "current and recent" from the "live COE feed," and enumerates content types (landslides, floods, structural damage) plus returned fields (location, status, impacts). It also names the sibling it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from search_sgr_sitreps without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly delimits when not to use it ("No history") and routes to the correct alternative ("for past event dossiers use search_sgr_sitreps"). Both the selection condition and the alternative are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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