Multi-hazard risk snapshot for a place

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

Despite having readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds significant behavioral context by disclosing parallel upstream calls and a 3-6 second response time. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations for latency and internal operations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with two short paragraphs. The first states the tool's purpose, and the second adds practical operational details. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has a single, fully documented parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations. The description explains the multi-hazard nature and gives performance expectations, which is sufficient for a snapshot tool. Returning value details are covered by the output schema, so no further description is needed.

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 schema already fully describes the single 'location' parameter as 'Municipality, city, or province name' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without enhancing semantics.

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 provides a 'Multi-hazard risk assessment combining PHIVOLCS + PAGASA', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools by aggregating earthquake, volcano, typhoon, and weather alert data. The verb 'assess' and the resource 'area risk' are explicit, and the multi-hazard integration differentiates it from single-source tools like get_volcano_status.

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 a comprehensive hazard snapshot by listing the data sources (PHIVOLCS and PAGASA) and mentioning parallel calls. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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