Get full details of a specific earthquake event by its USGS event ID.
Returns comprehensive information including magnitude, location, depth,
felt reports, tsunami status, and tectonic summary when available.
Args:
event_id: The USGS event ID (e.g. 'us7000m1xh'). Get IDs from search results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (magnitude, location, depth, felt reports, tsunami status, tectonic summary) and notes 'when available,' adding conditional behavior. However, it does not mention error handling for invalid IDs or net behavior, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.
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 brief but complete: a clear purpose sentence, a list of return fields, and a concise parameter explanation. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary filler.
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 an output schema present, the description covers the necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns (including optional fields), and how to use the parameter. The presence of an output schema means return structure is already defined, so the description is sufficiently 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 schema provides only a title 'Event Id' with 0% coverage, so the description is essential. It defines the parameter as a USGS event ID, gives a concrete example ('us7000m1xh'), and explains how to obtain IDs ('from search results'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.
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 explicitly states 'Get full details of a specific earthquake event by its USGS event ID.' This clearly identifies the action (get details), the resource (specific earthquake event), and the identifier (USGS event ID). It is well-distinguished from siblings like get_recent_earthquakes (lists events) and get_earthquakes_near (geo-filtered list).
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 clear context: this tool is for a specific event known by an ID, and it instructs 'Get IDs from search results.' This implies usage after a search/list call, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tool names are visible in context, but the description itself does not draw explicit comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_earthquake_detail retrieves specific event details by ID, get_earthquakes_near searches by geographic location with radius parameters, and get_recent_earthquakes fetches global recent events sorted by time. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these three functions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' prefix and descriptive suffixes (detail, earthquakes_near, recent_earthquakes). The naming is uniform, predictable, and clearly indicates the action and target resource.
Three tools are reasonable for a focused earthquake data server, covering key use cases: detail lookup, location-based search, and global monitoring. However, it feels slightly thin as it lacks tools for broader queries (e.g., by date range or magnitude range without location) or additional data like tsunami alerts, which might be expected in this domain.
The tool set covers essential earthquake data retrieval: specific event details, local searches, and global recent events. Minor gaps exist, such as no tools for historical data beyond recent days, filtering by region without coordinates, or accessing related data like tectonic plate information, but agents can work around these with the provided tools.