quake_area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic operation but omits behavioral traits such as return format, result limits, or API dependencies. Consideration of destructive or read-only nature is absent.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the core functionality. It could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral details without becoming verbose.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, any limits on results, or how bounding box coordinates are interpreted. Sibling tools suggest more detail might be needed for effective use.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond 'over a specified time period' (hinting at 'days'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as it does not significantly extend schema information.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'earthquakes', and specifies the spatial-temporal context ('within a bounding box over a specified time period'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quake_recent or quake_search.

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 implies usage for spatial-temporal queries but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like quake_search or quake_detail. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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