get_parameter_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get information' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects) and high schema description coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, output format) and there's no output schema, leaving gaps in understanding what information is returned. It meets minimum viability but has clear room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'parameter' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the significance of the parameter types listed). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get information about') and resource ('valid parameter values for NOAA API requests'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch actual data (e.g., get_current_predictions, get_tide_predictions) by focusing on metadata about parameter values. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from, which prevents a perfect score.

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 usage context by mentioning 'NOAA API requests' and the input schema suggests this tool helps understand valid values for other API calls. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before making other NOAA API calls to validate parameters) or any exclusions. The context is clear but not fully articulated.

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