wqp_results

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful context by listing common parameter names, but does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination behavior, default limits (though schema has it), or response format. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by helpful examples. No wasted words.

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 six-parameter, all-optional query tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It gives the essential purpose and common values. However, it omits guidance on when to use wqp_stations to find station IDs first, which would be useful for a complete workflow.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that station ID and parameter name are the primary filters and gives concrete examples for characteristicName, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get water quality sample results') and specifies the two primary filtering dimensions (station ID and/or parameter name). The phrase 'sample results' distinguishes it from sibling wqp_stations, which focuses on station 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 implies usage (for sample results) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like wqp_stations or state when to use it over other water quality tools. There are no exclusions or preconditions mentioned, so an agent gets limited selection guidance.

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