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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: data source (USGS), response format (JSON), one-call bundling, pricing, and the specific output elements.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core deliverable stated first, followed by use cases, source, format, and price. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy or 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the expected result elements: count, largest magnitude, list, and risk level. It also covers source, input mode, and price. It does not explain the risk-level scale or output structure in detail, but it is adequate for invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description reinforces the address-or-lat+lon choice and radius but does not need to add more; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 bundled deliverable: a seismic risk brief for a US point yielding recent earthquake count, largest magnitude, list, and risk level. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling geo tools by emphasizing seismic risk rather than general location or geocoding.

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?

It provides clear context: use for a US point via address or lat+lon, and names target use cases (insurance, siting, diligence). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is sufficiently specific to guide selection.

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