Earthquake detail

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavior: the source is inferred from the id format, return fields vary by source, IRSC ids resolve only against the latest ~20 events, and times are returned in both UTC and Tehran. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or error cases.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, before the source-specific detail. The parenthetical field enumerations are information-dense and mostly earn their place, though the per-source listing is long enough to make it slightly heavy for a one-parameter 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?

With no output schema, the description effectively enumerates the returned fields per source and states timezone conventions, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. For a single-parameter lookup, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the id pattern and example formats, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that the id format itself determines which source (and therefore which fields) you get, which is functional parameter semantics not present in 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?

A specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('one earthquake in full') with an explicit scope that sets it apart from the list-oriented siblings eq_search/eq_latest/eq_significant/eq_stats. It never names a sibling directly, so differentiation is by scope inference rather than explicit contrast.

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?

Usage is implied: you need a single event's full record and an event_id drawn from another eq_ tool (stated in the schema/description). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative for the single-event case, leaving the routing to inference.

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