Search NOAA Stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the result fields returned, pagination via limit/offset, and the R vs S reference/subordinate distinction with the 'hilo predictions only' caveat for subordinate stations. It omits auth/rate-limit notes, but adds substantial operational meaning.

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-loads the core purpose, then a tight bulleted filter list, then return contents, then the sibling hand-off. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the 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?

For a read-only search tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, this covers purpose, filter semantics, result shape, pagination, and alternative routing. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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 baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: the semantic rationale for choosing a type, concrete name substring examples, and the two-letter state format. It does not fully explain every enum member, delegating that to noaa_get_reference_guide.

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 ('Search the NOAA CO-OPS station directory') and enumerates the exact filter dimensions (capability type, name, state). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling noaa_find_nearest_stations by scoping itself to attribute search rather than coordinate proximity.

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 selection guidance ('pick the type matching the data you plan to request') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('For proximity search by coordinates use noaa_find_nearest_stations instead'). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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