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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the returned metadata, expandable sub-resources, and the ability to choose output format (markdown vs json). No contradiction 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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear summary, then uses a short list for the expand parameter (though not formal bullets), and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers the main return fields, expansion options, and format choices. Could mention how the 'units' parameter affects the output (e.g., feet vs meters for elevation), but overall it is sufficient for a metadata retrieval tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description enriches parameter meanings: for 'expand' it lists all sub-resources with brief explanations (e.g., 'details (established/removed dates)'), and for 'station' it distinguishes between numeric and alphanumeric IDs with examples. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it retrieves a full metadata record including location, state, time zone, tide type, and capability flags. It distinguishes itself from siblings like noaa_get_station_datums and noaa_get_harmonic_constituents by explicitly deferring to those for specific 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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this before requesting data to confirm what the station actually collects.' It also tells when not to use it by directing to noaa_get_station_datums and noaa_get_harmonic_constituents.

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