coops_current_predictions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by noting the output ('predicted current speed/direction'), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, date restrictions, or error cases. This is acceptable given the 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 exactly two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 description is brief but sufficient given the high schema coverage and clear annotations. It states the return type, which is important since there is no output schema. It does not describe parameter combinations or advanced usage, but for a straightforward current predictions tool, the current level is adequate.

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% (all 8 parameters have descriptions), so the description is not required to document parameters. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema's existing coverage, which meets the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('current predictions for a NOAA CO-OPS station'), and states the return content ('predicted current speed/direction'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like coops_tide_predictions by specifying 'current', and from coops_currents by specifying 'predictions'.

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?

The description clearly implies the tool is for predicted current data at NOAA CO-OPS stations, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the tool name and description make the intended use evident compared to related tools.

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