list_hydro_stations

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source ('/hydro feed') and optional query filters, but does not state what happens when no filters are applied (e.g., returns all stations), rate limits, or pagination. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but lacks deeper transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The purpose and data source are front-loaded, followed by the filter note and the specific use case. Every word earns 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?

For a simple list tool with two optional filters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: what it lists, the source, and how it is used (for get_hydro). It does not describe the response format, but that is not critical for a list operation of this nature.

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%, meaning both parameters (river, province) are already described in the schema. The description only says 'Optional query filters,' which adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), names the resource ('hydrological station names, rivers, and provinces'), and identifies the data source ('/hydro feed'). It also ties the tool to a downstream use case (finding the right station name for get_hydro), which differentiates it from siblings like list_weather_stations, though not explicitly.

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 clearly states the primary context: 'Used to find the right station name for get_hydro.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., list_weather_stations), but the intended usage is specific and actionable, satisfying the 'clear context' criterion.

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