Recent earthquakes in and around Türkiye

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and openness profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are timestamped in both UTC and Türkiye local time, but it does not describe ordering, pagination, or what an earthquake record contains.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and sources, followed by the most important return-format detail. There is no wasted text.

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 read-only open-world data tool with fully described parameters, the description covers the basics. However, it omits the geographic scope mentioned only in the title and does not explain result ordering or the shape of returned earthquake records, which matters more because there is no output schema.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the source choices and time-zone behavior, adding little parameter-level meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 identifies the resource as latest earthquakes and names the two possible data sources (AFAD and Kandilli). It is specific enough to distinguish this from unrelated sibling tools, though it does not explicitly state the geographic scope already present in the title.

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 strongly implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to alternatives, and no stated exclusions or caveats about source selection.

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