seismic_hazard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails. The phrase 'outcome-excluded prediction ledger' weakly implies the results come from a leak-free forecast source, but nothing states read-only vs mutating behavior, auth requirements, data freshness, or rate limits.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded beyond a bare label, and the sentence does not earn enough value for an agent to act on.

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 four-parameter geospatial tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is drastically incomplete. It omits what is returned, how lat/lon/region interact, what horizon_days does, and what 'outcome-excluded' means operationally.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters (lat, lon, region, horizon_days), and the description adds no meaning for any of them - no units, no required/optional distinction, no format for region, no range for horizon_days. The description does nothing to compensate for the total schema documentation gap.

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 essentially a noun phrase - 'Seismic hazard' restates the tool name with no verb stating what the tool actually does (compute? retrieve? estimate?). The qualifier 'via the public, outcome-excluded prediction ledger' hints at a data source but is too cryptic to clarify the action. An agent cannot tell from this whether the tool queries, predicts, or returns a hazard value.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ground_stability, water_availability, or resource_indication, all of which appear to be region-based environmental lookups. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternatives are named. Usage must be fully inferred.

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