find_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: parallel queries across ~20 agencies, graceful handling of unreachable agencies, a 60s TTL cache, explicit cross-network disagreement, preliminary-data caveat, and default behavior. No side-effect or contradiction concerns.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose first, behavior, usage hint, safety caveat, then defaults. Four short paragraphs are easy to scan and contain no filler.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what matters for invocation: source restriction, defaults, cache behavior, failure mode, preliminary nature, and a pointer to list_agencies. Remaining filter details are self-explanatory from parameter names and schema types.

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 0%, so the burden falls on the description. It explains agencies and the effective time/magnitude/limit defaults, which adds real value, but the other 11 parameters (center/radius, bounding box, magnitude ranges) are left to their names; interactions and constraints between filter families are not specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find recent or historical earthquakes') and adds the defining trait 'reconciled across multiple seismic agencies.' It explains each returned event lists every agency that picked it up, which separates it from singular get_event and agency-specific list_recent_by_agency.

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 gives concrete usage context: pass agencies to restrict sources, use list_agencies for supported codes, and warns against emergency use. It does not explicitly contrast with compare_sources or find_discrepancies, so it stops short of full when-to-use versus alternatives guidance.

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