DaedalMap Tsunami Data

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the context that the data is 'live agent-ready,' but it does not disclose more behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive. No contradiction with 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 two short sentences with the main action in the second. 'Free discovery.' is a somewhat redundant fragment, but the overall size is appropriate and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description covers the essential function. It lacks detail about the structure of the returned list, but for a parameterless discovery tool, this is reasonably 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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description appropriately adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to explain.

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 'Returns the list of live agent-ready data packs available on DaedalMap,' specifying the verb (returns), resource (data pack catalog), and scope (live, agent-ready, available). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pack, which presumably retrieves a single pack, and the disaster-link tools.

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 the tool is for exploring available data packs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than clearly defined.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, which already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds the adjective 'bounded' to clarify the chain is limited in depth, and 'Free' might hint at no authentication or cost, but it is ambiguous. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description adds value by noting the exact-id requirement and boundedness, but it does not disclose much more about behavior (e.g., response format, error handling).

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 and front-loaded with the key action. Every phrase earns its place: 'Free' is a minor label, 'bounded' clarifies behavior, and the usage condition is concise. No unnecessary words.

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 that the schema is rich with parameter details and the tool is relatively simple, the description provides enough to understand its core purpose and usage context. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the returned chain looks like or what 'bounded' means precisely (e.g., max depth is in schema but not described here). It is adequate but has gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the tool family.

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 5 parameters have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only echoing the 'exact event id' and 'supported pack' concepts already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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: expanding an exact disaster event id into a bounded related-event chain. It uses a specific verb ('expands') and specifies the resource (disaster event id), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on chain expansion rather than simple lookup or search.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this only when you already have an exact event id from a supported pack.' This provides a clear condition and exclusion. It does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the conditional phrasing implies there are other tools for cases where you do not have an exact id. This is good guidance, though not exhaustive.

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 known. The description adds the exact-id requirement and confirms it returns published links, but does not cover edge cases like missing ids or response format. This is acceptable since the read-only nature is already annotated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then a clear usage condition. Every sentence contributes; the only minor fluff is 'Free' but it does not detract from overall efficiency.

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?

With moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and a readOnly annotation, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. The lack of output schema is not critical here because the return value is conceptually simple ('links').

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 coverage is 100% with all four parameters described, including pack_id's role for ambiguity and cross_type_only's default. The description adds context about the exact event id but does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool resolves one exact disaster event id into its published related-disaster links, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the exact-id requirement and naming supported packs (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, wildfires).

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', giving a clear condition and exclusions. It does not name alternatives but the supported-pack list and 'only when' wording provide sufficient guidance for selection.

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, and the description aligns with that, adding value by specifying the exact kind of information returned. It discloses the behavioral purpose ('free discovery') and the intended workflow, which goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded with the tool's value proposition ('Free discovery') and a specific list of returns, followed by a concrete usage directive. No wasted words or redundant explanations.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully enumerates what the agent will receive and why it matters. With only one parameter and a read-only annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% for the single parameter pack_id, and the schema already explains its provenance (from get_catalog). The description adds no extra detail about the parameter itself, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action: returns detailed metadata for a single pack, enumerating exactly what it provides (metadata, coverage, freshness, canonical tool guidance, first-query examples). It also frames the tool as a discovery step before querying, which distinguishes it from query-oriented siblings like search_disaster_links.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before querying a new pack' with rationale (see time shape, coverage limits, paste-ready first query). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies it is a preliminary discovery call rather than a data extraction one.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the tool returns refusals, access limits, provenance fields, and a shared interaction contract. This provides substantial insight into the tool's behavior and the nature of its responses.

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 no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then lists specific output types and usage instructions, achieving maximum information density.

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 tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, input source, and the types of information returned. It is comprehensive 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 input schema already fully documents the sole parameter, tool_name, specifying it must be an exact name from tools/list. The description reinforces this workflow but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already covers.

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 purpose: providing guidance for using another tool on the MCP facade. It enumerates specific outputs (when to use, refusals, example, limits, etc.), making it distinct from sibling data-access tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: call this before working with an unfamiliar tool, and use tools/list to discover tool names. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it, but the context strongly implies it is only for unfamiliar tools.

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 supplemented by the description's key behavioral disclosures: this is a paid tool requiring payment, and the server returns HTTP 402 with the exact USDC price before charging. It also flags deprecated ID usage (XOO). These go beyond annotations and are crucial for correct invocation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and payment requirement, and each of the four sentences adds a distinct piece of information without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (6 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, use cases, payment behavior, and filter specifics. It hints at returned metrics (water-height/runup) but does not detail return structure or pagination beyond the limit parameter. Slight gap but adequate overall.

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 covers all 6 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context for filters (ISO3 vs. IHO ids, deprecation) and reinforces the limit tip about narrowing time range before sorting. This extra semantic value raises it above baseline.

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 tsunamis_events for historical tsunami records and water-height/runup metrics, with explicit use cases (event counts, max water height thresholds, top-event lookups). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_disaster_link_chain and get_catalog by being the 'canonical' paid tool for tsunami 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 description provides specific when-to-use guidance (event counts, max water height, top-event lookups) and detailed filter usage (ISO3 country ids, IHO named-water loc_ids, deprecation of XOO). It also explains the payment workflow (call without payment, receive 402 with exact price). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the use-case framing is sufficient.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the discovery-oriented behavior ('discover whether a relationship family exists') and the scoping to event-type direction and year window. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or other operational details. The 'Free' prefix is ambiguous and adds little behavioral clarity.

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 sentences, each providing distinct value: category ('Free linked-disaster discovery helper'), core functionality (searches by event-type direction and filters), and usage context. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, 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?

Given 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the tool's purpose, filtering dimensions, and use case effectively. It lacks explicit mention of return values or pagination, but the schema documents parameter limits, and the discovery context is sufficiently clear for a search 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%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description summarizes key parameters (event-type direction, via-event type, year window) but does not add meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for full 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 states a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('published cross-disaster link families'), and specifies the filtering dimensions (event-type direction, via-event type, year window). It also distinguishes from siblings by positioning this as a discovery tool for when you lack an exact event id, contrasting with tools like get_disaster_links_for_event.

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 indicates when to use this tool: 'Use this when you want to discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id.' This gives a clear context for use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity against siblings.

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