coops_currents

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that it is a safe read operation. The description adds the requirement that the station must support currents, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavior like default date ranges or how missing data is handled, though some defaults are present in the schema.

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 two sentences long, directly answers what the tool does, and front-loads the key purpose. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with a fully described schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the essential context: purpose and station requirement. It lacks explicit return-format guidance, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool make the description sufficiently complete.

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%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 resource ('current speed/direction observations from a NOAA CO-OPS station'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like coops_current_predictions. The scoping to 'observations' and the station requirement make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides one essential usage prerequisite ('Requires a currents-capable station') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as coops_current_predictions or coops_water_level. It offers no when-not or alternative guidance.

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