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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which clearly indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that projections come from the 2022 technical report and span through 2150, which is useful context but not essential beyond annotations. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences. The first sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, data source, time range, and scenario options. The second sentence adds a use case and links to sibling tools. No filler words; every phrase earns its place.

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 annotations (read-only, idempotent) and the comprehensive parameter descriptions (100% schema coverage), the description covers all necessary aspects for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. No output schema is provided, but the response_format parameter handles that. The tool is straightforward, and the description is complete.

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 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value for each parameter: it explains scenarios come from the 2022 Interagency report, suggests how to find station IDs (via noaa_search_stations or noaa_find_nearest_stations), clarifies unit system details (e.g., knots for wind, nautical miles), and explains the purpose of projection_year and response_format outputs. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 uses specific verbs ('Get NOAA's Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario projections for a station') and resources ('projected relative sea level per decade through 2150'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming noaa_get_sea_level_trends and noaa_get_high_tide_flooding, clarifying what this tool does vs. related functionality.

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 states the tool is for coastal planning questions and provides an example query ('how much sea level rise is projected at X by 2050?'). It also suggests pairing with two sibling tools, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if historical trends are needed instead), so it misses some exclusion guidance.

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