eonet_events

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: no API key required, third-party source licensing caveats, and a safety disclaimer. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior or result-set semantics for the limit parameter, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the resource and followed by filters, operational notes, and the safety caveat in descending order of importance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should say something about the shape of returned events (list vs. single, geometry fields) and pagination behavior; it only says events link to third-party sources. Adequate for calling the tool, but incomplete for interpreting results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it names all 9: category id, status values (open/closed/all), date format YYYY-MM-DD, limit, and the west/south/east/north bbox. It doesn't state defaults (status=open, limit=20) or ranges (1-100, ±180/±90), but those constraints are visible in the schema, so the semantic gap is mostly filled.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: listing natural-event metadata from NASA EONET v3. It's clearly distinguishable from eonet_categories or fires_* siblings, but it never says how it differs from the singular eonet_event sibling, leaving a small ambiguity about list vs. single-record retrieval.

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 filter enumeration implies the intended usage (query events by category/status/date/bbox) and 'Not for safety-of-life decisions' provides a genuine when-not exclusion. However, there's no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to eonet_event or nearby_hazards, so the agent must infer routing.

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