get_recent_earthquakes

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already communicate key behavioral traits. The description adds the data source (USGS) and default parameter values, but does not disclose potential traits like data latency, rate limits, or that results may change over time (open world). Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a clean Args list. No wasted words, purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It does not detail return values, but the output schema exists. Could mention data freshness or that results are from USGS near-real-time feed, but overall complete enough.

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 description compensates by explaining both parameters: min_magnitude (minimum magnitude, default 4.5) and days (how many days back, default 7). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default, though it could mention acceptable ranges or data formats.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'recent significant earthquakes worldwide from USGS'. Distinguishes from any potential sibling by specifying data source and scope ('worldwide'), making the 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?

Implicitly indicates usage for retrieving recent seismic events with configurable magnitude and time range. The description is clear but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, though no siblings exist to differentiate from.

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