Canada Earthquake Alerts MCP

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only adds numeric caps for radius and days. It does not explain read-only behavior, authentication requirements, subscription gating implied by 'PRO.', return format, or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loads the core search scope and constraints. The leading 'PRO.' is cryptic and the fragment style leaves some ambiguity, but there is little wasted text.

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 five-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits authentication/subscription behavior, return values, and sibling routing. The filter constraints are useful, but an agent would still be guessing about important call behavior.

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 20%, so the description meaningfully compensates by clarifying that radius is in kilometers with a max of 1000, days max out at 365, and min_mag is a minimum magnitude filter. It does not clarify the optionality or role of access_token, but that parameter already has a schema description.

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 states a specific resource and scope: earthquakes near a postal code with custom radius, days, and minimum magnitude. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling recent_quakes, though the customizable proximity filters imply a broader search than a recent-quakes listing.

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 implied by the proximity-search scenario and custom filter options, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. However, it never names recent_quakes or sites_check, nor does it explain when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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 behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses cost ('FREE'), temporal scope, spatial radius, geographic restriction, and result truncation/ranking ('top 3 by magnitude'). It omits data source and output shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the cost signal and then the scope. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: cost, time window, radius, geography, and ranking are all covered. It could add a postal-code format hint and a brief note on what fields come back, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain it. It adds that the postal code must be Canadian, which is meaningful, but gives no format example or validation hint, leaving a gap for a 0%-covered parameter.

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 names the resource (earthquakes), the scope (last 30 days, within 300 km of a Canadian postal code), and the ranking/limit (top 3 by magnitude). This is clear enough for an agent to know what it returns, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling quake_search.

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 implied by the stated constraints (Canadian postal code, 30-day window, 300 km radius), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative quake_search tool. The agent must infer that quake_search is for broader queries.

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 several useful behavioral facts: a default 90-day window, a fixed 200 km radius, a 25-postal-code cap, and PRO/subscriber gating (reinforced by the access_token parameter). It says nothing about how counts are grouped (per postal code vs. total), rate limits, or failure modes for unknown postal codes.

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 tight sentence with no waste, and the substantive scope (counts, radius, postal codes) is front-loaded. The leading 'PRO.' token is cryptic but at least signals the paid tier immediately.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it never explains the shape of the result (per-postal-code breakdown vs. aggregate), leaves min_mag undocumented, and gives no guidance on token acquisition beyond what the schema field says. An agent could call it, but could not predict or interpret the response confidently.

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 25% (only access_token is documented), so the description must compensate: it does clarify the default for 'days' (90) and the maximum for 'postal_codes' (25), and it reveals that the 200 km radius is fixed rather than configurable. However, 'min_mag' is left entirely undefined in both schema and description, which is a real gap for a filter parameter.

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 names a concrete resource and operation — quake counts within a 200 km radius of postal codes — which is distinguishable from the sibling tools quake_search and recent_quakes (listing/searching events vs. aggregated counts). It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, and the tool name 'sites_check' is actively misleading on its own, so the description is doing all the work.

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 statement of when to use this instead of quake_search or recent_quakes, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the cryptic 'PRO.' prefix. The agent must infer from the word 'counts' that this is an aggregation tool rather than an event listing.

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