get_usgs_earthquakes_ph

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 discloses that the tool returns events inside a bounding box with specific magnitude types and depth solutions, covering key behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only behavior, but the nature of the tool (data retrieval) makes it implicit. The description is informative enough for an agent to understand the data scope and output characteristics.

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 two sentences, each adding distinct value: the first identifies data source and region, the second details output attributes and purpose. There is no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently uses every word.

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 existence of sibling tools, the description adequately differentiates this tool. It mentions bounding box and magnitude types, but does not explicitly state the output schema (though output schema exists). For a query tool with a well-documented input schema and output schema, this level of completeness is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to 30 days ago.'). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting tips or cross-parameter dependencies. Since the schema already provides adequate guidance, a score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves USGS earthquakes in the Philippine region and cross-references with PHIVOLCS, using 'Returns events inside the PH bounding box ... including international-standard Mww/Mwc magnitudes and depth solutions'. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Complements PHIVOLCS with global-network analysis', differentiating it from likely PHIVOLCS-focused tools like get_earthquake_bulletin.

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 when to use this tool vs alternatives by noting it 'complements PHIVOLCS', suggesting use when global-network analysis is needed. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or list specific sibling tools as alternatives, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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