eonet_event

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds two things the annotations don't: 'No API key' (an auth prerequisite) and 'Not for safety-of-life decisions' (a data-reliability caveat), which meaningfully shapes how an agent should present 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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. Every sentence (what it returns, auth requirement, disclaimer) carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work by naming the returned sections (categories, sources, geometries). Minor gaps remain around error behavior for a malformed or unknown id, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies a regex pattern. The description says 'by id', which confirms what the parameter is, but adds nothing about where an id comes from or what an invalid id produces.

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 verb+resource: fetch one NASA EONET v3 event by id, and lists the payload sections returned (categories, sources, geometries). The singular 'one event by id' implicitly separates it from the sibling list tool eonet_events, though the sibling is never 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?

Usage is only implied by the 'by id' framing — an agent can infer this is the lookup path once an id is known from eonet_events or nearby_hazards, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. The safety caveat is a disclaimer, not selection guidance.

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