tool_get_seismic_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the time window (24h), aggregation by magnitude class, and global scope, but does not explicitly state read-only safety, data source, or update frequency. It is adequate but not rich.

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 very concise—three short segments—and front-loaded with the action verb. Every line earns its place without unnecessary 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention data freshness or whether it is real-time, but given the simple nature, it is complete enough.

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, so the description naturally adds no parameter-specific detail. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to document.

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 is specific: it retrieves a seismic summary for the last 24 hours, showing activity levels by magnitude class. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_get_recent_earthquakes, which likely lists individual events rather than an aggregated summary.

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 a summary-use case but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like tool_get_recent_earthquakes or tool_search_earthquakes. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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