ph-civic-data-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it makes 'parallel upstream calls' to two external services, specifies expected '3-6 second response time', and mentions the specific data sources. However, it doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second explains implementation details, third provides performance expectation. Well-structured and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple single-parameter input schema, the description provides good context about the parallel calls and response time. However, for a risk assessment tool making external API calls, mentioning error handling or data freshness would improve completeness.

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% with the single 'location' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 performs 'Multi-hazard risk assessment combining PHIVOLCS + PAGASA' with specific data sources (earthquakes from PHIVOLCS, typhoons/weather alerts from PAGASA). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_active_typhoons or get_earthquake_bulletin by combining multiple hazard assessments into one integrated tool.

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 description implies usage for multi-hazard risk assessment scenarios, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual sibling tools (get_active_typhoons, get_earthquake_bulletin, etc.). No guidance on prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria is provided.

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