usgs_earthquake_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns a count rather than full details, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. It does not contradict any annotation and gives an important expectation about the response type.

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 exactly two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Count earthquakes matching criteria') and then gives a practical example. No redundant or vague wording.

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 count tool with no output schema, the description conveys that it returns a count and gives a concrete usage scenario. It does not mention required parameter groups (e.g., date range vs. radius), but since all parameters are optional and the schema provides descriptions, this is not a critical omission. The tool is simple enough that this description suffices.

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%, so all 7 parameters are individually documented in the schema. The description adds a usage example (M5+) that references minmagnitude but does not clarify parameter combinations or constraints beyond the schema. Given high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('earthquakes'), and immediately differentiates from full-detail retrieval by noting it works 'without fetching full details.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling usgs_earthquakes, which presumably returns detailed records.

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 provides a concrete use case ('How many M5+ earthquakes occurred in 2024?') and implies a distinction from fetching full details. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context and example make the intended usage clear.

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