usgs_earthquakes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds return-field details (magnitude, location, depth, time, alert level, tsunami risk, felt reports) plus a magnitude scale interpretation. This provides useful context beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, each with distinct purpose: purpose, returns, magnitude context. No filler or repetition.

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 10 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essentials and adds domain context (magnitude scale). It could mention pagination/limit default or that maxradiuskm requires lat/lon, but the schema covers those details.

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 has 100% parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds the magnitude scale (2.5+ felt, 4.0+ moderate, etc.) which helps select appropriate minmagnitude/maxmagnitude values.

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 'Search for earthquakes by magnitude, location, date range, and more' – a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like usgs_earthquake_count (count-only) and usgs_significant (significant earthquakes only).

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 gives clear context (search by filters) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Siblings like usgs_significant and usgs_earthquake_count serve different purposes but are not referenced.

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