get_extreme_water_levels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but fails to mention critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., data format, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it safely and effectively.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity of retrieving extreme water levels and exceedance probabilities, the description is insufficient. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to cover behavioral aspects (e.g., data format, error handling) or provide context on the tool's scope. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, more detail is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (station, format, units). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'extreme water levels' entail or how 'exceedance probabilities' are calculated. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('extreme water levels and exceedance probabilities for a station'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top_ten_water_levels' or 'get_water_levels', which might also retrieve water level data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_high_tide_flooding_annual' or 'get_sea_level_trends', leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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