co_water_rights

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, and the description adds content details such as 'appropriation dates and decreed amounts' but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, default limits, or response structure. The description is consistent with annotations and adds moderate context beyond them.

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 deliver the core purpose and filter guidance without wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to scan.

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 read-only search tool with four optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and how to narrow results. The annotations and schema fill in the remaining details, and no output schema is needed for this simple search.

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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with clear descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats mention of county and water_source but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific action ('Search Colorado water rights and structures') and identifies the resource type with concrete examples ('adjudicated water rights, diversions, wells, and reservoirs'). The scope is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like co_water_stations and co_water_readings, which focus on stations and readings rather than rights.

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?

Provides clear context by describing the primary filters ('Filter by county and/or water source name'), which indicates intended usage. It does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, but the purpose statement is strong enough to guide selection among related Colorado water tools.

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