usgs_earthquakes_by_region

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'recent' as temporal scope, without defining the time window, result ordering, or upstream rate limits, so it contributes modestly beyond the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler, and the resource plus the spatial scoping constraint are front-loaded. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say something about what comes back (event fields, ordering by time or magnitude) and what 'recent' means. For a five-parameter query tool, those omissions leave a real gap, though annotations and the fully described schema cover the mechanical call details.

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 every parameter (lat, lon, radius, limit, min_magnitude) carries its own description with defaults and max values. The description only restates that lat/lon and radius are involved, adding no format, unit, or boundary detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Get), resource (recent USGS earthquakes), and scope (within a radius of a point) are all stated in one sentence. It implicitly separates itself from a plain 'recent earthquakes' feed by its spatial filter, but it does not name the sibling usgs_recent_earthquakes or usgs_earthquake_detail to make the distinction explicit.

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 phrase 'within a radius of a point' implies the usage condition (agent has coordinates and wants nearby events), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of choosing this over usgs_recent_earthquakes. Usage must be inferred from the scoping phrase alone.

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