usace_levels

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

With readOnlyHint=true already conveying safety, the description adds behavioral value by stating what the tool returns (level IDs, dates, constant values, units) and mentioning wildcard filtering. It does not contradict annotations and provides reasonable output expectations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return contents, and filtering usage. No fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and how to filter. Minor gaps like the meaning of 'constant values' or the exact role of the office parameter are not critical for basic 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%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description's mention of 'level-id-mask pattern' reiterates the schema's level_id_mask description without adding new semantics. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get water level data for USACE locations', which is a specific verb+resource. It also lists returned elements (level IDs, dates, constant values, units), making the tool's purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like usace_locations or usace_timeseries, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool is for retrieving water level data and provides a usage hint ('Use a level-id-mask pattern to filter'), but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The use case is clear from context but not contrasted with siblings.

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