usgs_daily_water_data

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds that data are aggregated daily means and lists parameter codes, which is useful context, but does not disclose output format, pagination, or potential limitations.

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 concise sentences, each providing distinct value: the primary function, a clarifying comparison, and parameter code semantics. No filler 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 read-only tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, data type, and parameter semantics. The absence of return-format details is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining parameter code meanings with units (cfs, ft, °C) and introducing 00010 (water temp), which is not in the schema description. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 the tool retrieves USGS daily value water data, specifically historical daily averages. It distinguishes itself from real-time instantaneous values, making its purpose and differentiation clear.

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?

It explicitly notes that daily means are better for trend analysis and contrasts with real-time instantaneous values, giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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