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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: results are capped at 100, which tells the agent truncation can occur. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a request spanning years returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the result cap is placed as a parenthetical right where it matters. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness means a couple of useful clauses (sibling routing, return shape) were left out rather than the sentence being bloated.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter query with full schema coverage and rich annotations, most of what an agent needs is already structured. However, there is no output schema, and the description never indicates what fields come back (magnitude, depth, location) or how a large range is truncated at 100 records.

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%, and both parameters already document the YYYY-MM-DD format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that a date range is required and adds no constraints on range width, timezone, or whether dates are inclusive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get earthquake history') plus scope ('within a date range'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like gempa_terkini or gempa_dirasakan, so the agent must infer the difference from the names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'earthquake history within a date range'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With three earthquake siblings (gempa_terkini, gempa_dirasakan, gempa_history), the description could have routed the agent between them but leaves that to inference.

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