get_natural_disaster_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool returns 'active and recent events with magnitude, severity, coordinates, and affected country.' This sufficiently communicates read-only behavior and output structure without needing extra details like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 tool's function in the first sentence and then providing practical usage and returned fields in the second. Every part adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is fairly complete. It covers sources, event types, return fields, and target users. A minor improvement would be to specify the update frequency or definition of 'active and recent' (e.g., last 24 hours).

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate because it adds no confusion or missing information.

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's purpose: retrieving real-time natural disaster alerts from specific authoritative sources (USGS, NOAA, GDACS) and lists the types of events covered (earthquakes, hurricanes, tropical storms, cyclones, floods, volcanoes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_disaster_events' by specifying sources and scope.

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 provides usage context by stating it is 'used by logistics planners and procurement teams to reroute shipments and activate contingency plans.' While it gives clear scenarios, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to similar siblings like 'get_disaster_events', which is a minor gap.

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