tool_get_magnitude_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns an explanation of magnitude classes and their effects, but does not mention the nature of the content (e.g., static, source, format). This is moderate transparency for a simple informational tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides educational context, and ends with a return summary. It is concise and well-structured, though it slightly repeats the term 'Erklaerung'.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers what it does and returns. It lacks detail about the depth of educational content or format, but the output schema likely handles the return structure, making the description adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. It appropriately focuses on the returned content.

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 uses the specific verb 'abrufen' (retrieve) and clearly identifies the resource: explanation of the Richter scale and magnitude classes. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on earthquake data queries by stating this is educational content ('Bildungsinhalt').

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 implies usage for obtaining educational information about earthquake magnitudes, as opposed to the data-focused sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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