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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the data reported (stage, flow, flood category, thresholds) and the geographic scope, providing behavioral context beyond 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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose and geographic context. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or fluff.

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 has no parameters, an output schema, and simple behavior, the description fully covers what the tool does and what data it returns. The geographic scope and listed waterways provide sufficient context for a user to decide if this tool meets their needs.

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 zero parameters, the tool has no input schema burden. The description compensates by detailing the output information (stage, flow, flood category, thresholds) for the listed waterways, aligning with the high schema description coverage (100%).

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 the tool provides current water levels and NWS flood stages for specific rivers and bayous in Crosby, TX and northeast Harris County, listing examples. This specific verb-resource pair and geographic scope distinguish it well from sibling tools like get_air_quality or get_traffic.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of flood monitoring is implied by the description, but it lacks clear 'when not to use' or references to sibling tools for comparison.

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