get_hydro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the server computes an alarm_status field from current values vs. thresholds, which is not evident from the schema. This adds meaningful context about the tool's internal behavior, though it omits other traits like rate limits or error behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and lists key data fields without redundant detail. Every sentence contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately conveys the data returned and the alarm_status behavior. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit guidance on pagination or handling of large result sets (though limit is in the schema), and it does not reference sibling tools for context, but overall it provides sufficient information for correct invocation.

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 all parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, hitting 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 the tool retrieves current hydrological readings from IMGW, enumerating specific fields (water level, flow rate, temperature, thresholds). This verb+resource definition is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes it from siblings like get_warnings (warnings vs. readings) and get_weather (weather vs. hydrology).

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 usage for hydrological data retrieval but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_warnings or other siblings. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the purpose alone.

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