Recent Earthquakes in Turkey

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (KOERI), refresh interval (5 minutes), return fields (magnitude, depth, coordinates, location, timestamp), ordering (newest first), and timezone (Istanbul time). This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured: first sentence states the action, second describes return data, third explains filters, fourth gives use cases, and fifth points to the alternative. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent can expect in the response (magnitude, depth, coordinates, location, timestamp) and the sort order. Combined with the sibling differentiation and parameter details, it is complete for a read-only tool.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds practical examples like '3 to skip micro-quakes' for min_magnitude and 'izmir', 'balikesir' for city. It also reiterates default and max values, giving agents a clearer sense of how to use each filter.

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 the tool fetches recent earthquakes in and around Turkey from the Kandilli Observatory (KOERI) feed. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_latest_earthquake by explicitly noting that tool is for the single most recent event.

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 provides concrete example queries like 'was there an earthquake in Turkey today?' and 'earthquakes near Izmir this week', and explicitly tells the agent to use get_latest_earthquake for the single most recent event. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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