quake_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search criteria, omitting important details such as result ordering, pagination limits, default values, error handling, or whether the query is exhaustive. This is minimal transparency.

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 a single clear sentence that front-loads the core action. No extra words, but given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, many siblings), it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 has 9 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the output contains, default behavior (e.g., limit=50, min_magnitude=1), how the bounding box is used, or the relationship between parameters. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand invocation requirements.

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%, so each parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description does not add further semantic context (e.g., typical values, constraints, or usage tips) beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('earthquakes') and filtering criteria ('by date range, magnitude, and geographic region'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'quake_area' or 'quake_detail' by specifying the search scope.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'quake_recent', 'quake_stats'). It lacks explicit conditions or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer usage from sibling names alone.

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