get_station_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states it's a 'compatibility wrapper' (implying it may be legacy or produce non-compact output) but doesn't explain what that means for output volume, pagination, performance, or which features may be limited. The wrapper nature and heavy parameter set (9 params) with no behavioral notes is a significant gap.

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 and the alternative-tool directive without waste. However, the conciseness comes at the expense of necessary substance; it's short but under-informative given the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the tool has 9 parameters, 0 schema description coverage, and no annotations. The description does not define what a station profile contains, how the wrapper behaves differently from query_ctd, or the meaning of the many optional filters. For a tool that is explicitly a compatibility wrapper, the description is far too thin to guide correct usage.

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%, so the description must compensate for 9 undocumented parameters. It contributes nothing about what 'variable', 'season', 'cruise_name', 'cruise_type', 'include_points', 'max_distance_km' mean or how they interact. Some parameter purposes are implied by their names, but the wrapper's semantics (e.g., how include_points and max_distance_km affect the profile) are left entirely unexplained.

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 says this is a 'Compatibility wrapper for station profile lookup', which clarifies it's a wrapper and names the action (station profile lookup). But it doesn't state what the tool actually returns or what a station profile contains, and doesn't distinguish it from get_cast_profile or list_stations beyond the compact-results note. It's clear it's a legacy/compat tool but under-specified about its actual function.

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?

It explicitly directs users to 'use query_ctd for compact results', naming an alternative tool and giving a reason to prefer it. However, it doesn't explain WHEN get_station_profile should be used (it only says when NOT to use it, implying a fallback/compat role). No guidance on when the other siblings like get_cast_profile or query_ctd should be chosen over this one.

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