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.