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

Discloses model validation (wAUC/BSS), premium pricing, and that output is not a public USGS scrape. However, with no annotations, it should also mention response format or side effects; this is missing.

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 short sentences, each adding value: model description, use cases, cost/validation. No fluff.

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?

Covers model, use cases, cost, validation, but lacks response format details and exact parameter behavior. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond indicating magnitude thresholds in the output.

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?

Clearly states it provides 72-hour earthquake probability forecasts from a specific model (LightGBM+XGBoost v23.0) with magnitude thresholds (M5.5+, M6.0+, M7.0+). Distinguishes from sibling 'alya_seismic_recent' by focusing on forecasts.

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?

Lists use cases (risk assessment, insurance pricing, surface high-risk regions) and notes premium cost. No explicit comparison to alternatives like 'alya_seismic_recent' but the context is clear.

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