volcano_status

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering safety, the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: IGEPN only publishes periodic reports for volcanoes it actively follows, so unreported volcanoes are absent; the 30-day window for the no-argument mode; and the fallback to a possibly stale report (read `report_date`) plus instant alerts when a name is given.

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?

Front-loaded with the two calling modes and then the Args note, so scanning yields the key decision first. The `volcano` argument is described once in the prose and again in the Args block, which is mild redundancy but not noise.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description largely compensates by enumerating the returned fields (activity levels, trends, report_date, instant alerts). It stops short of describing the structure or formatting of those fields, which is the only remaining gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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 carries the full burden and does: it defines the parameter as a volcano name, states case/accent/space-insensitivity with three worked examples, and fully specifies the default behavior when the parameter is omitted.

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 resource (latest IGEPN activity report for Ecuadorian volcanoes) and names the exact payload fields (surface and internal activity level, each with trend). Sibling overlap with ig_alerts is preempted by clarifying that instant alerts are only attached when a volcano is named.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ("how is the Sangay", "is Cotopaxi active") and clearly splits the two calling modes: omit `volcano` for every volcano reported in the last 30 days, supply `volcano` for that volcano's latest report however old. It never explicitly routes away from ig_alerts, which is the nearest sibling, so 4 rather than 5.

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