usgs_recent_earthquakes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as being a read-only operation, data freshness, or pagination behavior. The description is insufficient to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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 (9 words) which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity but lacks important elements like parameter explanations.

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 presence of three optional parameters and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not define 'recent' (likely tied to period), explain the return format, or clarify how the tool differs from usgs_earthquake_detail or usgs_earthquakes_by_region. The absence of an output schema further burdens the description.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with only 33% description coverage (period). The tool description adds no information about the parameters (e.g., meaning of minmagnitude, limit unit, period options). The schema names and period enum provide some guidance, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 specifies the tool retrieves 'recent earthquakes' from USGS, a clear verb-resource combination. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like usgs_earthquake_detail and usgs_earthquakes_by_region by name, though the description itself does not explicitly contrast them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the optional parameters (minmagnitude, limit, period) or any usage context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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