coops_water_quality

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that, showing no contradiction. The description adds modest context by specifying the data type, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as date handling, station coverage, or return format. With annotations covering the safety aspect, the description meets the baseline but adds no extra depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states what the tool does without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is highly concise and efficient.

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 clearly communicates the tool's purpose and data type, while the schema fully documents parameters and required fields. Although there is no output schema, for a simple read-only data retrieval tool, the combination of description and schema is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not overpromise or understate the tool's functionality.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including station, dates, units, and shortcuts. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the exact resource ('NOAA CO-OPS station') and data type ('conductivity/salinity (water quality)'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling CO-OPS tools like coops_water_level and coops_tide_predictions, which focus on different data types.

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 implies usage when conductivity/salinity data is needed at a CO-OPS station, and the sibling names reinforce this context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the specificity of the description makes the intended use clear.

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