barentswatch_lice_by_locality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, and the description clarifies the aggregation level ('weekly mean') and organism/sex ('adult female salmon lice'). It does not mention output structure, possible empty results for invalid locality/year, or data source quirks, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the two scoping dimensions (locality and year). There is no filler, repetition, or schema duplication.

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?

The tool is simple with only two required parameters, but there is no output schema and no mention of whether the result is a time series of weekly values or a single summary value. The description also lacks guidance on how to obtain valid locality IDs or which years are available, leaving some important context missing for an agent.

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 0%, so the prose must compensate for the bare parameter names. The description adds that locality_id refers to a 'Norwegian aquaculture locality' and that year is the data year, but it gives no range, format, or source for valid locality IDs and years. This is helpful but incomplete.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('weekly mean adult female salmon lice'), and a clear scope ('Norwegian aquaculture locality and year'). This fully differentiates it from the unrelated sibling tools about fisheries production, Copernicus datasets, and data sources.

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 when to use the tool: whenever weekly adult female salmon lice data for a specific Norwegian locality and year is needed. However, it does not explicitly state any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, though the sibling tools are dissimilar enough that ambiguity is low.

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