usgs_earthquakes_by_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool gets earthquakes, but fails to mention any safety aspects, rate limits, data source specifics, or that it is a read-only operation. This leaves the agent unaware of any important behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and substance. It does not use any formatting (e.g., bullet points) to aid readability or highlight key aspects.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the minimal description, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the bounding box coordinates, time range, magnitude filtering, or response format, leaving substantial gaps 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain minlatitude, maxlatitude, minlongitude, maxlongitude, minmagnitude, starttime, or endtime, forcing the agent to infer or guess their meaning.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves USGS earthquakes within a geographic region, specifying verb 'Get', resource 'USGS earthquakes', and scope 'within a geographic region'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like usgs_earthquake_detail (single earthquake) and usgs_recent_earthquakes (recent events without region filtering).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as usgs_earthquake_detail or usgs_recent_earthquakes. The description lacks context about preferred scenarios or exclusions.

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