md_bay_latest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the specific measurements returned, but does not disclose units, data freshness, station coverage quirks, or error behavior. It provides some value beyond annotations but not a full behavioral picture.

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 three sentences: purpose, returned fields, and station list. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. The station list is long but necessary for selecting a valid station. Minor structure improvement could be bulleted stations, but it remains concise.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description gives the essential purpose, sample fields, and stations. However, it omits units (e.g., temperature in °C), the meaning of 'latest' (last observation vs. daily summary), and whether all stations report all fields. Without an output schema, these gaps affect usability.

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 documents the single 'station' parameter with an enum of codes. The description enhances this by mapping each code to a human-readable station name (e.g., 'UP' = Upper Potomac), which is crucial for selecting the correct value. This goes beyond the schema's bare 'Station code' description.

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 clear action ('Get latest readings') and specific resource ('CBIBS buoy station'), and lists the measurements returned. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like md_bay_stations and md_bay_historical by focusing on 'latest' data, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it doesn't fully reach the top score.

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 current buoy readings are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like historical data or station lists. There are no exclusions or conditional use cases mentioned.

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