usgs_significant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context about time range and magnitude threshold, but says nothing about response format, limits, or pagination. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two compact sentences, each earning its place. The core function and criteria are front-loaded, and no filler or redundant restatement of annotations or schema is present.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is largely sufficient: it states the data source, time window, and magnitude criteria. A minor gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned earthquake data, but the tool's simple nature makes this a small omission.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description needs no parameter-level detail; it instead explains the fixed filter (past 30 days, M4.5+/felt/damaging), which is the only semantic information an agent needs.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get significant earthquakes'), defines the time window ('past 30 days'), and adds concrete selection criteria ('typically M4.5+ or felt/damaging events'). This clearly distinguishes it from the general usgs_earthquakes sibling by focusing on notable/filtered events.

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 phrase 'Quick way to see the latest notable seismic activity worldwide' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the user wants a summary of significant recent events. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the selection criteria and 'quick way' framing effectively imply the choice.

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