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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description text. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of result ordering (presumably most recent first), no pagination behavior, no rate limits, and no indication of which fields come back. The trailing fragment 'Her pakette.' conveys no verifiable behavior.

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?

Very short, but not efficient: the first line duplicates the tool title verbatim, followed by a bare endpoint path, then the meaningless fragment 'Her pakette.' None of these sentences helps an agent decide or call correctly, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and a query tool whose value depends on result shape and ordering, the description leaves too much unstated: no return fields, no sorting, no pagination note, and no clarification that results are capped to the last week unless 'saat' is supplied. Reference API path alone is not enough context.

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 80% and the four documented parameters (il, saat, yurtici, min_buyukluk) already explain themselves, including accepted formats (name, slug, or plate number). The description contributes no additional meaning such as units, magnitude scale, or default behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific resource and scope: recent earthquakes in Turkey and its surroundings over the last 7 days, plus the backing endpoint GET /v1/deprem/son. Siblings cover unrelated domains (fuel, gold, prayer times), so no sibling differentiation is required. The description mostly restates the title and names no verb explicitly, keeping it 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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of when to prefer a broader or different query. The only usage signal is the implied 'last 7 days' ceiling, which is embedded in the purpose statement rather than framed as guidance.

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