tool_get_earthquake_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level retrieval of a count; it does not explain how optional parameters like end_date or min_magnitude affect the query, whether the time range is inclusive, or what the response shape will be.

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 short, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without filler or redundancy. For a simple count endpoint, this is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has a rich schema and an output schema, so returning value details are covered. However, the description lacks usage context and does not differentiate from the seven sibling tools, leaving moderate gaps in decision-making support.

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% with clear descriptions for start_date, end_date, and min_magnitude. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description 'Anzahl der Erdbeben fuer einen Zeitraum abrufen' specifies a clear action (abrufen/retrieve), a concrete resource (Anzahl der Erdbeben/count of earthquakes), and a time-period scope. It is distinct from sibling listing/search tools because it emphasizes the count rather than returning individual earthquakes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as tool_search_earthquakes or tool_get_seismic_summary. There are no explicit contexts, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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