US Earthquake Risk & Alerts MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose key traits: cost ('FREE'), fixed non-configurable filters, and crucially that results are truncated to the top 3 by magnitude — an agent would otherwise wrongly treat this as a complete list. It omits auth expectations and behavior for a non-US or invalid ZIP.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the cost signal and then the scope, with no filler. Every clause conveys a constraint the agent needs.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost, filtering, radius, time window and result truncation. The remaining gap is what fields come back and what happens on an invalid or non-US ZIP, which is minor but not trivial.

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 0% — the single 'zip' parameter has no description at all — so the description must compensate, and it does: it establishes that zip is a US ZIP and that it acts as the geographic center of a 100 km radius. That is enough to use the parameter correctly, though it doesn't document the accepted format.

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?

Names a concrete resource (earthquakes) and pins down the scope exactly: M2.5+, 100 km radius, 30-day window, top 3 by magnitude. An agent knows precisely what it gets. It never names the sibling seismic_history to contrast with, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and the sibling seismic_history is never referenced. The hard-coded 'last 30 days' and 'top 3' constraints do implicitly signal that this is for recent, quick lookups rather than historical research, but the agent must infer that.

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; it does disclose the return shape (magnitude-band counts, strongest events, risk signal) and the years default of 20, which is genuinely useful. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what happens without a valid subscriber token, whether a paid plan gates it, or any rate limits. Adequate, but notable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 waste; every clause adds a distinct fact (geography, timeframe, output contents). The leading 'PRO.' token is unearned mystery rather than information, which is the only structural blemish.

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, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials of what comes back and the years default, which is more than many. It leaves radius_km semantics, the meaning of 'risk signal' and 'magnitude band,' and any auth/tier behavior undefined, so it is workable but incomplete.

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 documented), so the description must compensate more than it does. It contributes the years default of 20 and clarifies that zip is the location anchor, but radius_km is never mentioned and no units or bounds are given for years or radius. Partial compensation only.

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 scope: earthquake history near a ZIP over N years, with counts by magnitude band, strongest events, and a risk signal. That reads clearly against siblings recent_quakes (recent events) and sites_check, though the differentiation is implied by 'history' rather than stated. The cryptic 'PRO' prefix is unexplained but does not obscure the purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named. The phrase 'history near a ZIP over N years' implicitly positions it against recent_quakes, but the agent must infer that a historical/aggregate query belongs here while a current-events query belongs elsewhere. 'PRO' hints at a paid tier but never says what that means operationally.

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. It usefully discloses that this is a PRO tool and caps ZIPs at 25, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required beyond the token, and what the response includes.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key operational limits appear early. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter context.

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, no output schema, and only 25% schema parameter coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, usage relative to siblings, or enough parameter detail for 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies that days is a lookback window and that zips is capped at 25, but it leaves min_mag and the expected ZIP string format unexplained.

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 states the resource and scope reasonably well: recent earthquakes near up to 25 ZIPs, aimed at facilities, insured properties, and data centres. However, the tool name 'sites_check' is vague, and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like recent_quakes or seismic_history.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus recent_quakes or seismic_history. The use case is implied by 'facilities, insured properties, data centres', but there are no exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites stated.

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