seismic_zones

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: being inside a zone is the hazard signal, attributes only describe the map, and absence from a zone does not guarantee safety. This directly supports the openWorldHint and helps the agent avoid misinterpreting negative results.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core resource and zone types, then adds two crucial interpretive caveats that prevent misuse of the result. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists and annotations already convey the read-only, idempotent, open-world nature of the call, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical context: what constitutes a hazard and what absence means. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the input schema already documents address versus lat/lon usage, including that coordinates skip geocoding. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'at a location,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the specific resource ('California Geological Survey earthquake zones') and enumerates the zone types: Alquist-Priolo fault rupture, liquefaction, and earthquake-induced landslide. It implies a location-based lookup rather than an explicit verb, but the intent is clear and distinguishable from the non-seismic sibling hazard 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 implies the tool is used to check earthquake-related zones at a location, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like hazards_at_location, wildfire_zone, or flood_zone. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the interpretive caveat about zones.

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