ocean_chlorophyll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention data source, update frequency, units, resolution, or any limitations. The description only gives a high-level purpose without behavioral traits, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 short sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description lacks essential details such as what the output looks like (e.g., number, unit, time reference). Without annotations, this gap is significant for an agent to correctly interpret results.

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% with both 'lat' and 'lng' described as latitude and longitude. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 it provides ocean chlorophyll concentration as a reference for fishing productivity and marine ecosystems. It uses a specific resource (chlorophyll concentration) and distinguishes itself from sibling ocean tools by focusing on chlorophyll. However, it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'returns' or 'retrieves').

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like env_water_quality or ocean_buoy_data. The description lacks any context about when it is appropriate or not, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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