Multi-hazard risk snapshot for a place

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing parallel upstream calls, expected 3-6 second response time, and the heuristic nature of earthquake_risk_level. It also thoroughly explains failure behavior: the tool never raises, failures surface as caveats, and data_status/upstream_error semantics are defined. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: sources, latency, heuristic caveat, examples, and failure semantics are all relevant. It is well-structured with a clear lead sentence, examples in a block, and failure behavior at the end. No redundant filler.

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's complexity, the description covers input, expected latency, output status semantics, failure behavior, and the important caveat about official vs. heuristic risk. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the description. The agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single location parameter as 'Municipality, city, or province name,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only usage examples like 'Manila' and 'Batangas,' which reinforce but do not substantially extend the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Multi-hazard risk assessment combining PHIVOLCS + PAGASA.' It clearly names the two data sources and hazard types, and the examples show concrete usage. This distinguishes it from single-source sibling tools like get_volcano_status or get_active_typhoons.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a combined multi-hazard snapshot from PHIVOLCS and PAGASA is needed. It also gives a when-not by stating the earthquake risk level is 'never an official PHIVOLCS hazard assessment.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for single-hazard or official-data needs.

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