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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by defining critical behavioral traits: the data source (USGS ComCat), its fidelity ('Unaltered copy,' 'ArrowMem adds no assessment'), and the specific handling of flags ('carries the USGS tsunami flag as published; it is not a tsunami forecast').

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?

While highly detailed, the description is verbose. However, given the necessary legal and operational disclaimers (source, limitations, flag handling), the length is justifiable, but it could be slightly tighter.

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 no output schema is provided, the description is maximally complete. It defines the quality, origin, limitations, and scope of the data package, allowing an agent to understand exactly what the tool returns despite the lack of a specific output schema definition.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description does not add specific semantic value to the enum parameters ('significant_day', etc.), as those definitions are contained entirely within the input schema.

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's purpose as retrieving recent earthquake data specifically from the USGS ComCat summary feed. It distinguishes itself by detailing the scope (all contributing networks) and the nature of the data (unaltered copy).

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 extremely clear usage boundaries by stating exactly when the tool *cannot* be used: it is 'not an official alerting channel,' 'not a tsunami forecast,' and 'adds no assessment.' This prevents misuse.

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