coops_station_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the types of data returned (location, sensors, datums, products available), which goes beyond the bare read-only flag. It does not mention output format or rate limits, but the bar is lower given annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second lists representative output contents. Every word 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and strong schema/annotations, the description provides adequate contextual completeness by outlining what the response includes. The trailing 'etc.' slightly weakens completeness, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter (station_id) with an example, so the description adds little beyond confirming the tool is for a specific station. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantic load.

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 names the exact resource ('detailed metadata for a specific NOAA CO-OPS station'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also lists returned content categories (location, sensors, datums, products), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like coops_water_level or 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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need metadata for a known station. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use coops_stations to discover station IDs) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving usage context only implicit.

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