Listar estaciones del SAT de tsunami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description's only added context is the returned payload composition (codes and coordinates), which duplicates what the output schema likely shows. Nothing is contradicted, but little behavioral value is added.

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?

A single tight fragment with zero filler, and the resource identity is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than crisp completeness.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, output schema present, annotations covering safety), so minimal prose suffices. However, the description omits any usage context relative to the many SGR/risk sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess when it should be chosen.

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 100% and both parameters (limit, format) carry their own descriptions with defaults and an enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning; the baseline 3 applies.

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 fragment names a specific resource ('SGR tsunami early-warning (SAT) stations') and its payload ('codes and coordinates'), so an agent can tell what it enumerates. It stops short of an explicit list verb and never contrasts itself with any sibling, but no sibling covers tsunami stations, so differentiation is de facto clear.

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 tool, what prerequisites exist, or which alternative to use for related SGR/risk-event data (e.g., search_eventos_riesgo, search_sgr_sitreps). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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