get_cast_profile

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 disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't state what a 'CTD profile' returns structurally, whether 'compact' changes the response format materially, or how 'depth-filtered' behaves with null bounds. The 'optionally compact' hint is useful but insufficient without annotation coverage.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose immediately. However, it's under-specified rather than concise-clean; the brevity sacrifices necessary context. Still, for front-loading and no wasted words, it earns above-average score.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists which helps the return-value side. But with zero annotations and minimal description, the behavioral and parameter context is severely lacking for a tool in a domain (oceanographic CTD data) where agents need clarity on what a profile contains, how compact mode affects output, and how null depth bounds are interpreted.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'compact' and 'depth-filtered' which map loosely to include_points and depth_min/depth_max but not by name. The variable parameter, cruise_name, and cast_number meanings are not explained, and the 'compact' vs include_points relationship is ambiguous. The description adds minimal value over the empty schema descriptions.

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 states the verb (get), resource (CTD profile), and key options (compact, depth-filtered). However, among siblings like get_station_profile and query_ctd, it's unclear how 'one CTD profile' differs from these alternatives. The title/description is adequate but doesn't strongly distinguish from get_station_profile specifically.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_station_profile, list_casts, or query_ctd. 'One CTD profile' implies a targeted retrieval, but there's no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion of alternatives, which is especially important given multiple overlapping retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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