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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does help by stating the output fields. However, it claims 'optionally a bounding box' while the input schema exposes no bounding-box parameters, and it gives no caveats about rate limits or feed limitations.

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?

Two dense, purposeful sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every clause contributes either a filtering dimension or a return-field detail. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The return-field list helps compensate for the missing output schema, and defaults are covered by the schema. However, the unsupported bounding-box promise is a real completeness gap, and the relationship between radius_km and lat/lon is not explained.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds useful semantic grouping around magnitude, look-back window, and point+radius, but its bounding-box claim is not backed by actual schema parameters, which slightly reduces reliability.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List recent earthquakes worldwide from the USGS feed.' It enumerates filtering dimensions, making the tool's job unambiguous and easily distinguishable from the weather, elevation, and geocode sibling tools.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: when recent earthquake data from the USGS feed is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the domain separation from the sibling tools makes the appropriate choice evident.

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