ph-civic-data-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a 'full bulletin,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format details. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read-focused operation) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'bulletin_url' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage context beyond the schema's note. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full bulletin for a PHIVOLCS earthquake event'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_earthquakes' beyond implying this tool retrieves detailed bulletins rather than lists.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'bulletin_url' from 'get_latest_earthquakes' in the schema, hinting at a prerequisite, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives for different use cases.

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