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.