jma_get_earthquake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the response shape, bilingual tsunami text, sort ordering (strongest first), and the cost of include_stations. It does not state what happens if both identifiers are given or if neither is supplied — notable since required parameters = 0.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with what is returned, then how to identify the quake. The field enumeration is long but each item maps to something an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does so in detail, including ordering and the optional station payload. The remaining gap is the precedence/fallback behavior when zero or two identifiers are provided.

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 both identifiers and the boolean are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning: provenance of detail_id and the volume implication of include_stations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Full JMA report for one earthquake') followed by an enumeration of the returned fields: hypocenter, magnitude, tsunami assessment, intensity by prefecture/region/municipality. It is clearly distinguishable from jma_list_earthquakes, which is named as the source of the detail_id.

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?

It tells the agent how to obtain the identifier (detail_id from jma_list_earthquakes, or the 14-digit event_id) and when to set include_stations ('large quakes have hundreds' of stations). It stops short of an explicit 'use jma_list_earthquakes instead when you have no ID' exclusion, but the routing is clear enough in practice.

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