Get Prediction Offsets (Subordinate Stations)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context: the empty/null result for R stations and the bin-indexed quirk for current offsets, plus the ratio-vs-fixed semantics of the height adjustment. Some overlap with return fields likely covered by the output schema keeps this from a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core definition followed by the tide and current breakdowns, and the critical edge cases (R stations, bin suffix) land at the end. The enumerated field lists are somewhat verbose, but each sentence carries usable information.

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?

For a small read-only lookup with an existing output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, the two kind modes, the station ID conventions, the bin edge case, and the empty-result behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what kind="tide" versus kind="current" actually returns and by documenting the station_bin_suffix ID form (e.g. "ACT0091_1") for the current case, which meaningfully clarifies the station parameter.

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 with scope qualifier: returns the offsets a subordinate (type "S") prediction station applies to its reference station. It also distinguishes the two data variants (tide vs current offsets) and notes that reference (R) stations return empty, which differentiates it from sibling prediction tools like noaa_get_tide_predictions.

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?

Clearly frames when the tool yields meaningful output (subordinate stations) and when it does not (reference stations return empty/null offsets), and gives an actionable fallback for current offsets via the station_bin_suffix ID form when the plain ID returns nothing. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for reference-station predictions, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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