Count earthquakes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates the tool returns a count without event details, but does not describe the exact return format (e.g., integer or JSON) or any side effects. For a non-destructive read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool is simple (count operation) but has 11 optional parameters with low schema coverage and no output schema. The description references search_earthquakes for parameter details, which helps but assumes agent knows that sibling tool. Lacks explicit return format, making it minimally complete for an AI agent.

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 coverage is very low (18%, only start_time/end_time have descriptions). The description references search_earthquakes for parameter details but does not add per-parameter semantics or clarify how filters combine. Given 11 parameters with minimal schema descriptions, the description should provide more context or grouping, which it does not.

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 clearly states the tool counts earthquakes without returning details, using a specific verb and resource. The example query reinforces its purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like search_earthquakes which return event details.

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 provides a use case ('how many M4+ quakes hit California this year') and states it supports the same filters as search_earthquakes, guiding the agent on when to use count vs search. However, it could more clearly exclude scenarios where event details are needed.

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