earthquakes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a real constraint (days max 30) and ordering behavior (rows returned newest first), which is valuable. It says nothing about return shape, empty-result behavior, or whether results are cached/live beyond 'recent', leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and each parameter line is one clause with no filler. The 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly mechanical but costs almost nothing in length.

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?

All four parameters are explained despite 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The main residual gap is the absence of any safety/read-only statement, though the tool is self-evidently a read query.

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, and it largely does: region gets its two allowed values with a parenthetical covering Madeira, days gets a max of 30, min_magnitude is defined as a lower bound, and limit is defined as a row cap with newest-first ordering. It stops short of syntax details (e.g., decimal precision) and does not repeat the schema defaults.

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 first line gives a specific resource and source: recent earthquakes recorded by IPMA. There is no direct sibling conflict among the listed tools, so no cross-tool differentiation is required, but the description does not state geographic coverage limits beyond the region parameter.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter list (look back N days, filter by magnitude, cap rows), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named. An agent can infer it is a query tool for seismic events, but nothing more.

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