get_station_sensors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly implies a read-only operation (listing) and adds useful context about sensor characteristics (each measures a pollutant/indicator). However, it does not disclose any other behaviors such as response format, potential empty results, or pagination. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for more specificity.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('List the sensors installed at a station'). It is efficient, avoids redundant phrasing, and includes relevant examples without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It states the purpose and the parameter is documented in the schema. While it does not describe the return structure, that is not critical for a list operation of this type, and the absence of an output schema reduces the expectation for such detail.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter (station_id), and its description already clarifies that it is a numeric ID from list_stations. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. As per guidelines, when schema description coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even if the description adds no parameter-specific details.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly specifies the resource ('sensors installed at a station'). It also adds context by naming example pollutants/indicators, which makes the tool's function unmistakable even without reference to sibling tools. This differentiates it from get_sensor_readings and get_air_index, which focus on readings and indices rather than the inventory of sensors.

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 its siblings (list_stations, get_sensor_readings, get_air_index). There is no mention of alternatives or conditions. The only indirect hint is the parameter description in the schema referencing 'list_stations', but that is not part of the tool description itself. An agent must infer the usage context from the name and description alone, which is not explicit.

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