usgs_seismic_hazard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description only adds 'Real-time' and source attribution; it does not resolve whether the response is a historical/live event list or a forward-looking probability model, which is the single most consequential behavioral question for this tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the data domain and provider. Its brevity is the main weakness rather than any padding.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations covering output shape, and zero required parameters, the description should explain what a call with no arguments returns (a global feed?) and what form the 'hazard/probability' result takes. Neither is addressed, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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% with defaults documented for radius_km and minmagnitude, so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description adds nothing about how latitude/longitude pair with radius or what a missing parameter implies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('earthquake hazards and seismic probability') and the source ('USGS Earthquake Hazards Program'), so the domain is unmistakable. But it never states the operation in verb terms — whether it retrieves a live event catalog near a point, a hazard forecast, or a probability model — and the tension between the tool name ('hazard') and the latitude/longitude/minmagnitude parameters leaves the actual action vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The sibling list is mostly unrelated domains, so cross-routing is less critical here, but nothing tells an agent under what conditions this tool is the right call versus simply not calling it.

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