coops_high_low

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds that data is 'verified' and returns 'high and low water level observations,' providing some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits like pagination, default date ranges, or response format.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds the 'verified' detail but is somewhat redundant with 'high/low tide data' and 'high and low water level observations.' Still, it is efficient and free of unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, a clear annotation, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it. It identifies the data type (observed high/low) and data source (NOAA CO-OPS station), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools, though it does not explain return structure or date handling.

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 six parameters are already described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter detail or clarify usage beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool gets observed high/low tide data (or verified high and low water level observations) from a NOAA CO-OPS station. The verb 'Get' with specific resource and data type distinctly identifies the tool's function, and the mention of 'observed' differentiates it from sibling tools like coops_tide_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 gives clear context about intended use (accessing observed high/low tide data) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as coops_tide_predictions or coops_water_level. While the word 'observed' implies contrast with predictions, no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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