GDACS — Disaster History by Country

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as data freshness, pagination behavior, or rate limits. It merely restates the basic function.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Args' line is somewhat redundant given the schema and misses opportunities to provide helpful context. Still, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, much is left unsaid. No description of return format, pagination, sorting, or how to interpret the data. Lacks comparison to similar tools like globalpulse_disasters_get_active, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 should compensate but only lists parameter names and gives an example for country. Enum values (e.g., EQ, TC) are unexplained, and defaults or constraints are not described. Minimal value added over 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 disaster history for a specific country from UN GDACS. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like globalpulse_disasters_get_active, which returns active disasters.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tool for active disasters or provide context for when history vs. active data is appropriate. Only a list of arguments is given without any 'when to use' information.

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