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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the magnitude filter (M2.5+) and global/coordinate scope, which gives some behavioral context. However, it omits details like rate limits, pagination, or response format, which are not covered elsewhere. Since it's a read-only query, the lack of mutation warnings is acceptable, but the description could state that it only returns recent events.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more explicit about the parameter. It earns a high score for brevity and clarity.

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 that there is an output schema (not shown) and one parameter, the description should at least explain the parameter's meaning and usage. It fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess. The description also doesn't mention any limits (e.g., max results, date range). Overall, it is incomplete for a tool with one undocumented parameter.

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 has one parameter 'q' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'q' represents (likely coordinates or a query string). It says 'global or near coords' but does not clarify how to encode coordinates or what formats are accepted. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies the resource (USGS recent earthquakes) and the scope (global or near coordinates, M2.5+). It distinguishes itself from unrelated siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative for earthquake queries. The verb 'quakes' is implicit but the resource is clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disasters' or 'weather'. The mention of 'global or near coords' hints at usage contexts but doesn't explain how to specify coordinates or filters. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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