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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful context beyond these: data provenance (GNS Science), the GeoNet API source, auth requirements, and the quality values including 'deleted', which hints at how deleted events are handled. No contradiction.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently lists returned fields, data source, and auth requirement. No filler or redundant detail.

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 one-parameter, read-only detail lookup, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the identifier format, what data will come back, who publishes it, and auth requirements. The output schema covers the detailed return structure.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents public_id with format, example, and constraints. The description repeats the example but doesn't meaningfully add beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States the exact operation: get full detail for a single New Zealand earthquake by publicID, and enumerates the returned fields (origin time, depth, magnitude, locality, MMI shaking, quality). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling geonet-nz.quakes.search tool, which is for searching/finding quakes.

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 states the required input (publicID) and notes that no authentication is needed, giving agents the prerequisite to call the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling search/stat tools, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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