md_bay_stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds station abbreviations and full names, which is useful context, but does not describe the output structure, status values, or any operational details like refresh frequency 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 core description is a single clear sentence. The second sentence listing stations is somewhat long but valuable for reference. No wordy fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (stations with locations and status) and enumerates station codes. It lacks detail on status semantics, but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the station codes listed in the description add useful context about the data returned.

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 clearly states 'List all Chesapeake Bay CBIBS buoy stations with their locations and current status', identifying both the action (list) and the resource (CBIBS buoy stations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like md_bay_latest or md_bay_historical by focusing on the station list rather than real-time 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 implies its use as a reference for station codes and names, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related tools like md_bay_latest or md_bay_historical. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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