disaster_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about the knowledge domain and example topics, but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, or handling of empty results).

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?

Single sentence with parenthetical examples is extremely concise and front-loaded. Every part of the description adds value; no wasted words.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and examples. Could mention return format (e.g., list of relevant passages), but not essential.

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% (the only parameter 'query' has examples). Description reinforces the query's expected content (disaster/safety topics) but adds minimal value beyond the schema's own examples.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches knowledge about Japanese disasters and safety, with specific examples (earthquake, typhoon, emergency contacts, disaster preparedness). This distinguishes it from siblings like disaster_list (which likely lists items) and general search.

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?

Description implies usage for disaster/safety queries in Japanese context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like disaster_list or search. No when-not guidance is provided.

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