DaedalMap Earthquake Data

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the contextual detail that the list is 'live' and 'free discovery,' which hints at real-time data and no-cost access, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. With annotations present, the additional context is minimal, earning a mid-range score.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. 'Free discovery' immediately sets context, and the rest states the object and scope. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple, no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool returns (a list of data packs). It lacks details on the return format or how 'live' updates occur, but given the low complexity and read-only annotation, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role within the sibling set.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered (100%). The description does not need to explain parameters. With no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies, and the description adds no additional parameter-related 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's function: 'Returns the list of live agent-ready data packs available on DaedalMap.' This uses a specific verb ('returns') and a distinct resource ('data packs'), and the scope ('live agent-ready') differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on disaster links and earthquake events.

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 phrase 'Free discovery' implies this tool is for browsing available data packs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pack or search_disaster_links. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage guidance is only implied.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is true, so the description does not need to declare safety. It adds context about the 'bounded related-event chain' and the requirement of an exact event ID, which is useful. However, it does not describe behavior like cross-type linking, depth semantics, or output format. Given the annotation covers the read-only nature, the description provides adequate but not rich additional context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose 'Free linked-disaster helper' and immediately states the core functionality and usage condition. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 (5 params, one required) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the input requirement and the scope of results. However, it doesn't explicitly describe what the output looks like, but the description and schema cover the essential usage semantics, making it largely complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter well. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, such as the meaning of 'depth' or 'cross_type_only'. Therefore, the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Expands one exact disaster event id into a bounded related-event chain.' This clearly states the tool's function and scope, distinguishing it from search or catalog tools. It also specifies the exact input requirement, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this only when you already have an exact event id from a supported pack,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies that this tool is not for searching or exploring without an exact ID, though it does not name specific alternative tools. The exclusion is clear enough for an agent to make a correct choice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nuance that it resolves to 'published' links and is free, but it does not disclose behavior for ambiguous IDs (where pack_id is needed) or error handling for nonexistent IDs. This adds some context but does not go beyond annotations significantly, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a usage constraint. It is concise and skimmable. The word 'Free' is a minor distraction, but overall it is well-structured and efficient. Not quite a 5 because 'Free' is not strictly necessary, but it is not vague or bloated.

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 4 parameters (1 required), full schema coverage, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the core functional context: what it does, when to use it, and the input constraints. It does not explicitly state return format or error behavior, but since there is no output schema, the mention of 'related-disaster links' gives a reasonable expectation. This is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so all four parameters are documented. The description reinforces that the event_id must be exact and that supported packs include earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, and wildfires, which adds slight semantic context. However, it does not introduce new information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is used.

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 identifies the tool as resolving an exact disaster event id into its published related-disaster links. It specifies a concrete verb ('resolves') and resource ('related-disaster links'), and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing the requirement of an exact event id from specific packs.

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?

It provides a clear when-to-use condition: 'Use this only when you already have an exact event id from a supported pack.' This implicitly excludes cases where the id is not exact or the pack is unsupported, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., search_disaster_links for fuzzy lookup). Thus, it has clear context but lacks explicit alternatives, giving a 4.

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

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the paid nature of the tool, the HTTP 402 behavior when called without payment, and cost scaling for broad vs. narrow queries. It also adds data-quality context (enriched DaedalMap history lane, stable loc_id) that influences trust and interpretation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose and payment caveat. Every sentence adds value: what it queries, when to use it, and the payment behavior. No fluff or repetition.

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 paid, query-style tool with a good schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, payment flow, cost implications, and data provenance. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing to infer major details beyond the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, though it does hint at the need for narrower filters for cost control, which relates to the filters and limit parameters. This is marginal but not enough to raise the score.

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 queries the published earthquakes_events lane with specific verbs ('Queries', 'Use this first'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing it as the enriched DaedalMap history lane with stable loc_id geography, not the preliminary upstream wrapper or live earthquakes.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first for earthquake questions and explains why (enriched, stable loc_id), and contrasts with the preliminary upstream wrapper. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly (e.g., get_live_earthquake_events), so the exclusions are implied rather than fully spelled out.

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

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds value by explaining the live wrapper behavior, the upstream source, and the preliminary nature of events. It also notes normalization to DaedalMap fields and the distinction from the canonical lane, which provides context beyond the annotation.

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: the first states what it is, the second gives the core functionality, and the third provides usage constraints and exclusions. No filler or repetition, 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?

Despite 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the source API, normalization, live/preliminary scope, and exclusion from the canonical lane. It hints at the return structure via 'normalized to DaedalMap event fields', though it does not detail pagination or timezone specifics. This is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning the lookback window and 'very recent window', which aligns with the hours/start_time fields. This meets the baseline 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 calls the USGS FDSN API to fetch recent preliminary earthquake events normalized to DaedalMap event fields. It explicitly distinguishes from the canonical history lane and siblings like get_earthquake_events.

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?

Explicitly says to use only when live/preliminary upstream results are needed or a very recent window is required, and clarifies it is not the enriched canonical history lane. This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds context about being a 'free discovery' and lists the returned data types, but doesn't disclose potential error behavior, rate limits, or limitations beyond what annotations imply. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose. Slight redundancy ('coverage' in both sentences), but every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what to expect (metadata, examples, guidance) and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is offset by the listed return categories, making it complete for practical invocation.

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 describes pack_id as a 'Pack identifier from get_catalog' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general instruction to call before querying, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schema parameters.

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 returns metadata, coverage, freshness, canonical tool guidance, and first-query examples for a single pack. It distinguishes itself from query tools by instructing to call it before querying a new pack, and its resource ('one pack') contrasts with siblings like get_catalog.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before querying a new pack', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to identify the appropriate trigger.

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

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by enumerating the exact content returned: when to use, refusals, example, access limits, outputs, provenance, recommended next calls, and the interaction contract. This provides rich behavioral context and reinforces the read-only, guidance-only nature.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then densely packs the return categories, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates all expected return categories in detail, making the tool's behavior fully transparent. For a 1-parameter read-only meta-tool, the description is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 documents the single parameter tool_name as 'Exact tool name from tools/list', and the description reinforces this by telling the user to discover names via tools/list. This adds context beyond the schema, though the schema coverage was already complete.

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 returns guidance for a single tool visible on the MCP facade, using the verb 'returns' and a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on disaster data by being a meta-tool for tool discovery and guidance.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call this before using an unfamiliar tool and advises using tools/list to discover tool names. While it doesn't state when not to use it, the guidance is clear and actionable, satisfying the usage context requirement without needing exclusions.

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

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read operation, the description adds the discovery-oriented scope and the ability to search without exact event IDs. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits, so it provides only moderate context beyond annotations.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences. It opens with the purpose, states the search criteria, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 description clearly conveys purpose and usage context, and the schema fully documents all seven optional parameters. However, without an output schema, the description does not specify what the tool returns or the format of results, which is a notable gap for a discovery tool.

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 descriptive parameter explanations, setting a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the roles of event-type direction, via-event type, and year window but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb 'Searches' and identifies the resource as 'published cross-disaster link families', with clear scope via event-type direction, via-event type, and year window. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_disaster_links_for_event by emphasizing discovery before having an exact event ID.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you want to discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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