Get Sea Level Rise Projections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description adds real context beyond them: the projection source, decadal resolution, and 2150 ceiling. It stops short of noting auth, rate limits, or latency, so a 4 rather than 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and tightly structured across three sentences. The mid-sentence re-listing of scenario values duplicates the schema enum and is the one mildly redundant element.

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 zero-required read tool with a full output schema, the description supplies everything the agent needs: data provenance, temporal scope, units pointer, and routing to siblings. Return-value documentation is correctly left to the output schema.

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 station, units, scenario, and projection_year. The description largely restates the scenario enum and units handling rather than adding syntax or semantics the schema lacks. 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+resource ('Get NOAA's Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario projections for a station') and pins down the data source (2022 technical report), temporal resolution (per decade), and horizon (through 2150). It clearly distinguishes itself from sea-level-trends (observed) and high-tide-flooding siblings.

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?

Explicitly names the use case ('coastal planning questions') with a concrete example query, and routes the agent to complementary tools (noaa_get_sea_level_trends for observed, noaa_get_high_tide_flooding for impact) with the condition that selects each. Nothing is left to inference.

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