AFAD deprem listesi

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the results are sorted newest to oldest, and defaults (last 7 days, magnitude ≥3.0, max 50 records) are stated. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect without contradicting annotations.

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 somewhat verbose and redundant, mixing Turkish and English with a near-duplicate English translation of the opening clause. The core information is present but could be tightened into a single clean sentence without losing meaning. It is not tightly structured or front-loaded.

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 read-only, optional-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential context: data source (AFAD catalogue), fields returned (magnitude, depth, location, province/district), sorting (newest first), and defaults. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, and the output schema handles return-value expectations.

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%—every parameter (bitis, limit, baslangic, minBuyukluk) has a clear description with defaults. The tool description repeats these defaults but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists earthquakes from AFAD's catalogue within a date range, including magnitude, depth, location, and province/district, and specifies sorting order. This is a specific verb-resource combination that fully distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which relate to earthquakes.

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?

While no explicit alternatives are named, the tool's unique purpose among siblings (all unrelated: currency, weather, fuel, holidays, ID verification, plate lookup) makes its usage self-evident. The description clearly implies when to use it—when earthquake data from AFAD is needed—and there are no competing tools requiring exclusions.

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