Get Extreme Water Levels

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world read, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the statistics are computed from the station's verified record and are relative to the station's datums for the 1983–2001 epoch, plus the long-record availability constraint.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core deliverable and then the routing cue and availability caveat. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the key preconditions (long-record station) and the epoch/datum framing, leaving little an agent needs before invoking it; only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it just below complete.

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 units, station, levelType, extremeType and response_format, including enums. The description adds no extra syntactic or default information about these parameters, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('extreme water level exceedance statistics for a station') and spells out the returned content: annual exceedance probability levels like the 1%-annual-chance 100-year level plus historical extreme events. This clearly separates it from siblings such as noaa_get_top_ten_water_levels or noaa_get_water_levels.

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?

Gives explicit usage context ('Use for flood risk questions...') and states a precondition/exclusion ('Only long-record stations have this product'). It does not name an alternative sibling for closely related risk products like noaa_get_high_tide_flooding or sea-level-rise tools, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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