Get Live Earthquake Events

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it is a free wrapper, calls the USGS API, normalizes fields, and returns preliminary events. No contradictions with annotations. It discloses the tool is for live data and not enriched.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

While the description and schema cover parameters well, there is no output schema or description of the return format. Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, live data), additional details on the response structure would aid completeness. However, the description is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline 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 it is a free live wrapper for the USGS FDSN API that returns recent preliminary earthquake events normalized to DaedalMap event fields. It distinguishes itself from the enriched canonical history lane, likely referencing sibling tool get_earthquake_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 description hints at when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating 'Not the enriched canonical history lane,' implying that for enriched historical data, one should use a different tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide exclusion criteria.

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