Australia Earthquake Alerts MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or return format, beyond implying a subscriber ('PRO') and fixed 7-day window.

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 short and front-loads the resource scope. However, the unexplained 'PRO.' fragment is cryptic and consumes space without adding actionable meaning.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits key context: what 'min_mag' does, whether 'access_token' is required for PRO access, and what the response contains. It is too sparse to fully support correct invocation.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions neither 'min_mag' nor 'access_token', and adds no meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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: a full 7-day earthquake list from Geoscience Australia. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explain how it differs from sibling 'recent_quakes', but the source-and-window specificity makes the purpose understandable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'recent_quakes' or 'region_search'. The only contextual hint is the cryptic 'PRO.' prefix, which implies a subscription tier but does not explain selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: a fixed 7-day lookback, a hard cap of 5 results, and magnitude-based ranking. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, freshness/latency, or what fields each quake record contains.

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 short sentence with the most decision-relevant token ('FREE') front-loaded, then source, scope, and result shape. Efficient, though the 'FREE.' fragment is slightly clipped and the top-5 cap could read ambiguously as a parameter.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers source, time window, result count, and ordering — enough to call it correctly. A brief note on returned fields or on how it differs from 'ga_week' is the only real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly adds no redundant parameter prose. The mention of 'top 5 by magnitude' usefully signals that the result cap and ordering are fixed rather than configurable.

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 the resource (Geoscience Australia earthquakes), the time window (last 7 days), and the result shaping (top 5 by magnitude) — an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'ga_week', which plausibly covers the same source and period, so the agent cannot tell them apart from the description 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?

The leading 'FREE.' hints that cost should influence selection, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to 'ga_week' / 'region_search' as alternatives. Usage must be inferred entirely from the time-window and top-5 constraint.

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

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the load and does disclose useful traits: the USGS data source, an Australia-region geographic scope, a 90-day lookback cap, and via 'PRO' an implicit subscription/auth requirement that matches the access_token param. It stops short of describing what is returned, ordering, or limits on result size.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, but the compression goes too far: 'PRO.' and 'bbox' are unexplained fragments that cost more clarity than the brevity saves.

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 3-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the definition leaves min_mag undefined, the region-selection mechanism ('bbox') unexplained and inconsistent with the schema, and says nothing about the shape of results.

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 only 33% (access_token documented), so the description must compensate. It adds value by capping 'days' at 90, but never explains min_mag, and it references a 'bbox' region filter that has no corresponding parameter — a misleading hint about how the region is specified.

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?

Identifies the resource (USGS earthquakes around Australia) and a scope constraint (up to 90 days), but the verb is only implied by the name and 'bbox' is cryptic — especially since no bbox parameter exists in the schema. It does not differentiate itself from siblings ga_week or recent_quakes.

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?

'PRO' hints that a paid tier is required, but there is no statement of when to use this versus ga_week or recent_quakes, no exclusions, and no explicit prerequisite guidance beyond the terse tier marker.

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