cdec_stations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature. The description adds useful context about the kind of metadata returned (location, operator, river basin, sensors) but does not disclose additional behaviors like response format, pagination, or error handling. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, though not rich.

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 sentences deliver the purpose, content, and usage guidance with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded ('Get metadata for CDEC monitoring stations') and fully 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 one-parameter lookup tool with a read-only annotation, the description is largely sufficient. It lists the metadata fields returned, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. A small gap exists in that it doesn't state that the response contains a single station's metadata or mention any error conditions, but these are minor for this tool's complexity.

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% with clear examples (e.g., 'SHA', 'ORO', 'FOL'). The description reinforces that the station_id is used to look up metadata, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool retrieves metadata for CDEC monitoring stations, listing specific content areas (location, operator, river basin, available sensors). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cdec_sensor_data by emphasizing metadata lookup and positioning this as a prerequisite step.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to find station IDs before querying sensor data.' This provides a clear usage context and implicitly contrasts with the sensor-data querying tool, offering directional guidance to the agent.

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