get_high_tide_flooding_annual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' data (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'annual count data' entails (e.g., aggregated statistics). For a data retrieval tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place 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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It specifies the data type ('annual count data') and target ('station'), but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace, more context would help the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying 'station' is required (matching schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified parameter interactions (e.g., date vs. year_range).

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('high tide flooding annual count data for a station'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_high_tide_flooding_daily' or 'get_high_tide_flooding_monthly', which would require specifying the temporal aggregation level (annual vs. daily/monthly).

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. With multiple high-tide flooding tools (daily, monthly, annual, likelihoods, projections), the description lacks context about temporal scope, data granularity, or use cases, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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