get_recent_earthquakes

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by presenting a read-only query that 'includes' certain fields rather than claiming an exhaustive shape. It adds useful detail about returned content—time, magnitude, depth, epicenter, and intensity summary—and documents the limit behavior, exceeding what annotations alone convey.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence specifying the purpose, one sentence summarizing response contents, and a brief Args section for the parameter. Every line adds value, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter constraints, and return value highlights. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 schema only lists limit with a default of 5, but the description explicitly defines its meaning (number of returned records), its valid range (1–10), and its default. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and leaves no ambiguity about how to use the parameter.

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 opens with a clear action and resource: '查詢最近幾筆顯著有感地震報告' (query recent notable felt earthquake reports). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_forecast and get_weather_warnings because it is specifically about earthquakes, not weather.

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 intended context is clear: use this when you need recent felt earthquake reports, with an adjustable limit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scoping language ('最近幾筆', '顯著有感') provides enough context for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.

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