jma_list_earthquakes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job disclosing key behavior: the feed covers roughly the last few weeks, results are newest first, and each item includes origin time, epicenter, magnitude, intensity, per-prefecture intensity, and detail_id. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 a single dense paragraph but is front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. The field list and intensity-scale parenthetical are useful, though the run-on structure could be split for easier scanning.

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?

Because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description appropriately explains what each returned item contains and how the feed behaves. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, with only minor omissions like explicit auth or rate-limit context.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters. The description still adds value by giving example filter values and clarifying the JMA seismic intensity scale, including that it is not the Mercalli scale, which helps interpret min_intensity beyond the enum labels.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list recent earthquakes in and around Japan from the JMA feed, newest first. It also distinguishes this list operation from the sibling detail tool by explaining that each item includes a detail_id for jma_get_earthquake.

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?

It gives clear usage context by naming the feed scope and showing filter examples such as min_intensity '4' or min_magnitude 5 to find significant quakes. It also points to jma_get_earthquake for details via detail_id, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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