get_disaster_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that events auto-expire based on source TTL, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or any destructive behavior, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 moderately concise at four sentences, but it repeats filtering capabilities and could be restructured for brevity. It front-loads the purpose effectively, but includes some redundancy.

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?

The description lists return fields (event type, severity, location, coordinates, affected country) and mentions auto-expiry, which partially compensates for the lack of output schema. However, the mismatch between described filters and empty schema undermines 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, yet the description mentions filtering by event type, country, region, and lookback window. This mismatch is confusing and misleading. With 0 params, the description should clarify the lack of parameters or align with the schema.

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 natural disaster events relevant to supply chain operations, names multiple data sources, and specifies return fields. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'get_natural_disaster_alerts' by highlighting additional filtering options.

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 contextualizes usage by stating it complements a sibling tool with more filters, such as multi-day lookback and region-based filtering. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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