get_earthquake_bulletin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the full bulletin contains (e.g., format, fields), any side effects, or whether it returns structured data. The description is too minimal for a tool with no behavioral annotations.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, perfectly concise.

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 has one simple parameter, an output schema exists, and it is a straightforward retrieval operation, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral details that would be expected given no annotations.

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 single parameter bulletin_url has a schema description that explains it is a URL from get_latest_earthquakes. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'full bulletin', and specifies the scope as 'PHIVOLCS earthquake event'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_latest_earthquakes (which lists events) and get_usgs_earthquakes_ph (which is for USGS data).

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 implies that the tool is used after get_latest_earthquakes (since the parameter is described as a URL from that tool), but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any prerequisites.

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