tool_get_significant_earthquakes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it retrieves earthquakes and does not mention read-only safety, result format, pagination, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and output schema.

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 a single concise sentence that states the core purpose without redundant text. It is well-structured for a simple tool, though it lacks any additional organizational elements like examples or usage notes. This is efficient but minimal.

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 has three parameters and a rich sibling set, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how parameters like min_magnitude or limit affect the result, nor does it provide context on when to choose this over other earthquake tools. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value explanation, but the overall description is incomplete for effective selection and 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate for any coverage gaps.

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 a specific verb 'abrufen' (retrieve) and identifies the resource as 'Bedeutende/starke Erdbeben' (significant/strong earthquakes), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_recent_earthquakes' or 'get_largest_earthquakes'. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives, so it doesn't fully separate itself from similar tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and parameters. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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