feltearthquake

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should reveal all behavioral traits. It lists parameters and response keys but omits whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or data update frequency. The agent lacks critical safety and performance context.

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 reasonably structured with sections for parameters, request example, and response keys. However, listing all response keys is verbose; some could be omitted if the response is standardized. The information is useful but could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating all response keys, which is helpful. For a simple tool with one parameter and a straightforward API, the description covers the essentials. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no error handling hints) but overall it is complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds value by listing the specific language values ('en', 'tc', 'sc') and providing a default and example. This enriches the schema's minimal description 'change the language of the result'.

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 'Locally Felt Earth Tremor Report' and provides a request example. The purpose is evident: to retrieve earthquake data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'flw' or 'fnd', which are unknown but likely different domains.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of others. The description provides parameter details and an example but does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent would not know if this is appropriate for historical data or real-time queries.

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