tool_earthquakes_near_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and gives no details about output format, result sorting, pagination, or any filtering behavior beyond what the schema implies. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 zero fluff. It is concise and to the point, though it lacks any supplementary structure or additional details. This is efficient but minimal.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, good schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for basic selection. However, it falls short on usage guidelines and behavioral context, making it merely complete enough for simple scenarios but not for nuanced decision-making.

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 100%, so all six parameters have semantic descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond mentioning coordinates, which is already captured in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Erdbeben in der Naehe eines Ortes (Koordinaten) abrufen' clearly states a specific verb (abrufen) and resource (Erdbeben near coordinates), distinguishing it from siblings like recent or significant earthquakes. This is a precise, non-tautological 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_earthquakes or get_recent_earthquakes. It lacks any mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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