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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it declares the return includes source/freshness metadata and, critically, that an empty response must not be read as safe conditions — a non-obvious semantic warning.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a caveat and a compact units line. It is tight overall, though the telegraphic units string ('Units: ft, kt, s, F, mi') is slightly cryptic without labeling which quantity uses which unit.

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?

For a read-only data-fetch tool with no output schema, the description partly covers returns (data plus source/freshness metadata) and supply units, which is helpful. However, the undocumented nested 'bbox'/'category' parameters and absent usage guidance leave clear gaps for a tool whose schema is entirely undescribed.

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 0% and the single nested 'query' parameter exposes 'bbox' and 'category' with no documented meaning, format, or accepted values anywhere. With coverage well under 50%, the description is expected to compensate but instead mentions no parameters at all, leaving them fully opaque.

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?

States a specific resource (canal discharge and freshwater releases) and its provenance ('published agency dataset'), which no sibling covers, so an agent can distinguish it from the many get_* data tools. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (e.g., get_usgs_water or get_lake_okeechobee) for related freshwater/discharge data.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The 'Empty reports do not establish safe conditions' line is an interpretation caveat for results, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.

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