get_agency_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Static metadata' clearly implies a non-mutating, read-only lookup, and the listed fields set expectations for what kind of information is returned. It does not discuss access requirements or behavior for unknown agencies, but those are secondary for a metadata lookup.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core metadata content is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining practical use cases for the tool.

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 simple one-parameter static lookup with an output schema, the description covers the resource, the returned fields, and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of explicit accepted value format for the agency parameter, but the examples partially compensate.

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?

The schema provides only 'agency' as a string with no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds meaning by framing it as a seismic agency and giving real examples like JMA and USGS, which imply codes/abbreviations, but it never explicitly states whether a code, full name, or ID is expected.

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 first sentence clearly defines the resource: static metadata about a seismic agency, listing specific fields (coverage, latency, magnitude completeness, notes). It is clearly about agency details rather than events or comparisons, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_agencies or compare_sources.

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 explicit when-to-use context: interpret cross-agency disagreement or decide which agency is authoritative. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives such as compare_sources or list_agencies.

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