wqp_stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds useful context about data provenance (USGS, EPA, 400+ state agencies), which helps an agent understand the scope. It doesn't mention pagination or return format, but the readOnlyHint lowers the burden for behavioral disclosure.

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 the action and filters. No redundant information or filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only station search with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the core functionality and data sources. It doesn't describe the return shape or pagination, but given the tool's straightforward nature, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have detailed descriptions. The tool description merely echoes the filter types (state, county, HUC) without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches water quality monitoring stations by state, county, or HUC code, using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like bart_stations or cdec_stations by specifying 'water quality' and the filtering dimensions.

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 intended use case: finding water quality monitoring stations based on geographic filters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like wqp_results or when not to use it, but the search-by-filter context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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