md_bay_historical

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the available variables and stations, but does not disclose response format, pagination, or error behavior. This matches the baseline expected when annotations provide the main behavioral traits.

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 primary purpose. It then provides necessary variable and station mappings. Though somewhat repetitive with the schema, the direct code-to-name pairs are useful and the description remains 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?

With 100% schema coverage, readOnlyHint, and a clear statement that it returns historical time-series data, the description covers the essential usage context. It does not specify data granularity or exact response structure, but this is not critical given the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature.

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 the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description repeats the variable and station lists without adding semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get historical time-series data from a CBIBS buoy station.' It also clarifies the scope with 'Query specific variable over a date range for trend analysis,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like md_bay_latest and md_bay_stations by emphasizing historical data.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when historical time-series data for a specific variable and date range is needed (e.g., trend analysis). It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the use case is well-defined.

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