get_earthquake_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only query operation and specifies the significant-felt earthquake filter and which data fields are included. This is transparent for a simple retrieval tool, though it does not mention any timeout, response shape, or edge-case behavior.

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 one compact sentence that includes the core action, the object, the count concept, and the important result fields. There are no redundant or filler words.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description conveys the essential behavior and output content. The output schema is present, so a full return-value description is not necessary. Missing details like default limit fall to 1 are minor because they are represented in the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does state '最近 N 筆', which communicates that the 'limit' parameter controls the number of returned reports. However, it never explicitly names the parameter or explains constraints such as default, minimum, or maximum, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a specific verb '查詢' and a clear resource, earthquake reports, while explicitly listing the returned fields (time, location, magnitude, depth). It also distinguishes itself from the weather/typhoon sibling tools by focusing on earthquake data.

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 when to use this tool—when earthquake report data is needed—by contrasting with weather-related siblings. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or compare itself with any alternative earthquake tools, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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