quakes_near

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden — and it delivers a genuinely useful behavioral fact: a partial lat/lon/radius set returns 422 rather than silently degrading to the global feed. It does not mention rate limits or data latency, but the key failure mode an agent would hit is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the constraint, then the enum, then the alternative — every sentence does work. The 'agent-safe' parenthetical is mildly redundant editorializing but does not bloat the 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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described, and the critical invocation constraint is covered. The only real hole is the meaning and accepted values of the 'detail' parameter, plus any radius bounds.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does for four of five params, specifying the all-or-nothing coupling of lat/lon/radius_km and the range enum values with its 'day' default. The 'detail' parameter is left completely unexplained despite being the one remaining gap.

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 verb+resource (USGS earthquakes within radius_km of a point) plus the underlying route, and explicitly names disaster_alerts() as the different alternative. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like relief_disasters or volcanoes without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule for the optional filters (pass lat/lon/radius_km together or none) and a concrete reroute condition to disaster_alerts() for a global severity-scored view. This is when/when-not/alternative guidance in full.

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