fdsn_get_allmagnitudes_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: the eventid is opaque and must be copied verbatim from a prior query, and datacenter options are enumerated. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining critical usage constraints.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose sentence, a usage condition, a critical warning, and datacenter note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, the critical eventid constraint, and datacenter options. An output schema exists to handle return-value details. Minor gaps remain (e.g., error behavior, effect of datacenter on results), but the essential context is present.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the eventid is an opaque provider-specific string and must not be invented or reformatted, and it clarifies the datacenter parameter by listing default and available values. This adds non-obvious semantics beyond the plain schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all computed magnitude solutions for an earthquake event.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on magnitudes and listing relevant magnitude types (ML, Mw, Mb, Md).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when asked about different magnitude types, magnitude comparisons across agencies, or station counts.' It provides clear context but does not enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, which prevents a 5.

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