list_casts

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 doesn't state what the 'nearest standard station' matching does (matching logic, what happens if no station is near), whether results are sorted, whether refresh causes a data fetch, or what default behavior occurs with station=null. The return behavior is completely undocumented.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it's underspecified rather than efficiently concise, so it doesn't earn the top score. Structurally fine, but more substance is needed.

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 having an output schema and 6 parameters, the description is minimal. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and 6 parameters including non-obvious ones like refresh and max_distance_km, the description should explain matching logic, default behavior, and parameter interactions. Given the moderate complexity, this falls well short of what would enable 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 0%, and the description adds essentially no parameter semantics. It mentions 'nearest standard station' which loosely maps to station and max_distance_km, but doesn't explain how max_distance_km interacts with the matching, what cruise_name does, or what refresh/limit/offset control beyond their titles. The description fails to compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 it lists casts and optionally restricts to a standard station. The core purpose is clear ('list casts'), but it does not mention the cruise_name requirement which is the only required parameter, and it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_stations or list_dataset_rows. The phrase 'nearest standard station' is vague and unexplained.

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 vs siblings. It doesn't explain what 'standard station' means in relation to list_stations, when limit/offset are relevant, or what 'refresh' does. There's no mention of prerequisites (cruise_name) or exclusions, so the agent must guess when this is appropriate.

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