Kandilli son depremler

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 known. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: the data is sourced from BDTİM, sorted newest-to-oldest, has a hard 500-event publication cap, uses Turkish local time, and distinguishes preliminary vs revised solutions. It does not mention empty/error responses, but that is a minor gap given the output schema exists.

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 reasonably front-loaded with the main purpose and key constraints, but it repeats the same information in Turkish and English ('Boğaziçi... Rasathanesi' vs 'Kandilli Observatory', 'son depremler listesi' vs 'Latest earthquakes'). This redundancy makes it longer than necessary without adding new meaning.

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 tool with simple optional parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers data source, retention limits, defaults, timezone, ordering, and included fields. The only missing piece is an explicit pointer to the AFAD sibling for alternative data, but the 'AFAD'dan bağımsız' note already signals the relationship.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the 500-record publication limit (which explains the limit maximum), reinforcing the defaults, and specifying that times are in Turkish time, which clarifies how sonSaat and timestamps should be interpreted.

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 a specific resource (Kandilli Observatory's latest earthquake list) and a specific action (returning/listening to earthquakes), and it differentiates itself from the sibling AFAD catalog with 'AFAD'dan bağımsız ikinci katalog.' It also enumerates the returned fields (magnitude type, depth, location, place name, preliminary/revised status) and the ordering (newest to oldest), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives useful context for choosing this tool: it is an independent second catalogue to AFAD, publishes only the last 500 events (usually a few days), and has clear defaults (24 hours, magnitude ≥ 3.0, max 50 records). This implies when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state 'use this when X, use AFAD when Y,' so exclusion guidance is only implicit.

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