Search earthquakes

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It states default behavior and return format, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination limits (though limit parameter exists), or constraints like conflicting parameters. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, filters, location types, defaults, and output. No wasted words. Front-loaded with key action and resource.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main use cases well. It could be more explicit about parameter interdependencies (e.g., circle requires latitude+longitude+radius_km). Almost complete.

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 100%, so description adds marginal value. It summarizes location options and defaults, but doesn't elaborate on parameter syntax beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool searches the USGS earthquake catalog, specifies filterable fields (time, magnitude, location), and differentiates between bounding box and circle location types. It also lists return fields. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like count_earthquakes or felt_reports.

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 mentions defaults for time range, magnitude, and location, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., count_earthquakes for counts, felt_reports for human reports). Usage is implied but no 'when not to use' or alternative references.

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