Free US river reading

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It lists returned data types but does not mention error handling, authentication, or rate limits. The 'No payment' note adds some transparency.

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 focused sentence with an example, front-loading the core purpose with no wasted words.

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 simple 2-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (current/previous/change/trend/record_hash) and provides an example, but lacks detail on output format and error states.

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% with descriptions. The description adds an example and clarifies the entity parameter as USGS site id, but does not significantly expand beyond 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 provides free raw US river readings (gage height/streamflow) for a USGS site id, with an example. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other gauge-related 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?

The description implies use for river level or streamflow data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like gauge_flood_risk or gauge_crop_drought.

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