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.