Find Earthquake Details

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to emphasize safe read behavior. It adds that the tool returns 'origin quality metrics', a useful detail beyond annotations, but does not mention pagination, response size, or whether all fields are always present.

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 with an example inline. Every word is meaningful and there is no filler. Highly front-loaded: key action and parameter type stated immediately.

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?

Given the tool has only 1 parameter, full schema coverage, and informative annotations, the description is nearly complete for a lookup tool. It could mention whether the response is synchronous or if the ID format is always lowercase, but overall it is largely sufficient.

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%; the schema already defines eventid as a string with a description. The description adds a concrete example ('us6000d3zh') which aids understanding, but doesn't add deeper semantics beyond what the 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 gets detailed information for a single earthquake using a specific USGS event ID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information' are specific, and the example helps differentiate from sibling tools like find-earthquakes which likely return lists.

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 implies use when you have a specific event ID, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with count-earthquakes. The sibling tools exist but no direct guidance on trade-offs is given.

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