mn_lake_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful detail about the data categories returned (fish species, surveys, water quality, depth, consumption guidance). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not describe pagination or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose, included content, and how to find the ID are all conveyed efficiently. Every sentence 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how to use it. It could mention not-found behavior or response format, but the included data categories make it complete enough for normal use.

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%, with the 'id' parameter already documented as 'Lake ID (DOW number) from search results (e.g. '21005700')'. The description reinforces the source of the ID by pointing to search and nearby tools, but adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides.

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 starts with 'Get full details for a Minnesota lake by ID,' clearly identifying the specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by noting that mn_lake_search and mn_lake_nearby are for finding lake IDs.

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 explicitly says to use mn_lake_search or mn_lake_nearby to find lake IDs, providing concrete guidance on how to obtain the required parameter. It does not state exclusions or alternative detail tools, but for a simple detail endpoint this is sufficient context.

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