turkey_earthquakes_afad_official_feed

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey that the source is official AFAD and real-time, and 'Retrieve' implies a read-only fetch, but it says nothing about refresh cadence, geographic boundary for 'neighboring regions', result ordering, or rate/access constraints.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler and the source qualifier ('official AFAD') placed early. It is well sized for the amount of information it actually delivers, though the brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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 two-parameter read-only feed with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is close to adequate. However, the undefined 'neighboring regions' scope and the lack of any routing against the overlapping earthquake siblings leave real ambiguity for an agent.

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%, and both parameters ('maxResults', 'minMagnitude') are fully described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no interpretation of what magnitudes mean, defaults, or sensible ranges beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') plus a named resource ('official AFAD real-time earthquake records') with an explicit geographic scope ('Turkey and neighboring regions'). That distinguishes it from generic scrapers, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling 'earthquake_monitor_usgs_emsc_afad', which appears to overlap substantially.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance is given. With two obvious sibling earthquake tools ('earthquake_monitor_usgs_emsc_afad', 'europe_mediterranean_earthquakes_emsc'), an agent has to guess which feed is appropriate for a given query.

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