usace_locations

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return fields ('Returns location name, coordinates, type, state, and county') and provides office code-to-city mappings, which helps set expectations. It does not mention limits or pagination, but the added context is valuable.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by useful domain details (office codes) and return fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter usage guidance, and return fields. Coupled with the readOnlyHint annotation and full schema description coverage, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including the office codes and wildcard support in names. The description adds city names for office codes, which is a minor enrichment, but it does not substantially go beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states 'Search CWMS monitoring locations by name, office, or type.' This identifies the action (search), the resource (CWMS monitoring locations), and the search criteria. It also lists the return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like usace_timeseries and usace_levels that would handle data, not location metadata.

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 on what can be searched and includes a helpful list of valid office codes with corresponding city names. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand typical use cases.

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