ocean_buoy_data

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and specifies data sources and measurements, but doesn't disclose potential constraints like station validity, data update frequency, or response format. This is adequate for a simple fetch tool but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description lists expected measurements (wave height, wind, temperature, pressure), giving agents a reasonable understanding of the return data. However, it omits details like time range, units, or how to specify historical/current data, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (station) with a description including examples. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond noting the data source. The baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional semantic value is provided.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving ocean buoy measurements (wave height, wind, temperature, pressure) from NOAA NDBC. It uses a specific verb and resource, making it easy to understand. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like env_ocean_temp, the specificity of buoy data and listed parameters sets it apart effectively.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., satellite-derived ocean data from env_ocean_temp). It lacks exclusions or context for optimal use, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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