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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the data source (seismicportal.eu/EMSC), confirming no authentication is required, and clarifying that by default only preferred magnitudes/origins are returned unless flags are set. This extra context enhances transparency without contradicting the 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then describe the optional behavior. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler. The text is well-structured and efficient.

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-event detail tool with an output schema, robust annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers why this tool exists, how to obtain the required ID, the optional parameters' effect, the data source, and authentication requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 three parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description reiterates the eventid origin and the effect of the optional flags, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description only reinforces 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 verb ('Get full detail') and a precise resource ('a single earthquake event from the EMSC real-time seismicity catalog') identified by its event ID. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by referencing the source of the ID, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 conditions usage on the event ID 'as returned by emsc.search_earthquakes', which tells an agent to first run a search and then use this tool for details. It also explains the optional flags for including all magnitudes/origins, giving clear guidance on when to set them. This effectively communicates when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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