qem

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

With no annotations available, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists parameters and response keys but omits key behaviors: it does not state that the tool is read-only, makes an HTTP GET request, or has any side effects. The response keys hint at the output, but the behavioral profile is incomplete, especially for a tool that performs an external API call.

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 well-structured with clear sections: a header, parameter list, example request, and response keys. It is somewhat verbose but mostly front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the example and response keys could be integrated more concisely.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: parameter values, an example URL, and response fields. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool, though it could explicitly state the data source (Hong Kong Observatory) and that the operation is read-only.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'lang', but the schema description ('change the language of the result') is vague. The tool description adds concrete meaning by specifying allowed values ('en', 'tc', 'sc') and provides a request example, significantly enhancing parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as 'Quick Earthquake Messages (qem) API Request' but does not explicitly state a verb or action (e.g., 'fetch' or 'get'). It relies on the name and context to imply the purpose, making it somewhat clear but not precise. The presence of sibling tools like 'feltearthquake' suggests a potential distinction, but the description does not clarify how 'qem' differs from similar earthquake-related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'feltearthquake' or other data sources. The description lacks any contextual cues about preferred scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision-making support for tool selection.

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