Latest Earthquake in Turkey

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: feed refresh every 5 minutes, return fields, timezone, and that it takes no parameters. It does not mention any side effects, but for a read-only tool this is adequate. Missing is explicit confirmation that it is a read-only operation, but that is implied.

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 three sentences: purpose, return details, and usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and carries weight; no redundancy or empty phrases.

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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is well-rounded: it explains what is returned, notes refresh cadence, specifies timezone, and provides an alternative for broader queries. Nothing essential is missing for this scope.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), and the description adds clarity by explicitly stating 'Takes no parameters.' For a no-parameter tool, this meets the baseline and slightly exceeds it by reassuring the user.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single most recent earthquake') with precise scope ('in or around Turkey by the Kandilli Observatory (KOERI)'), and explicitly distinguishes this from get_earthquakes by noting that the sibling handles lists and longer time windows.

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 an explicit when-to-use scenario ('what was the last earthquake in Turkey?') and an explicit when-not-to-use with a named alternative ('for lists, filtering or a longer time window, use get_earthquakes instead'). This is ideal guidance.

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