get_node_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully assumes the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details default timestep behavior, inclusion of min/max/mean, caps on nodeIds and timesteps, runId handling, output flags (units, qualityAnalyzed), and special cases for tanks/reservoirs. This is comprehensive and leaves little to inference.

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 concise yet dense, front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covering defaults, limits, run selection, output flags, and edge cases. Each sentence contributes valuable information without 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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects for correct invocation: defaults, caps, run selection, output flags, and node-specific behavior. It is self-sufficient for an agent to call this tool reliably given its complexity and parameter count.

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 schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds extra meaning: it explains pagination semantics for offset, default property behavior, and special node-type nuances like net inflow for tanks/reservoirs and zero tank pressure. This goes beyond the schema and enhances the agent's understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Query simulation results for nodes,' which immediately makes the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from siblings like get_link_results (links) and get_nodes (network structure), and the description adds specificity with defaults and limits.

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 for when to use this tool (for node simulation results) and explains parameter behaviors like runId selection, pagination via offset, and default timestep handling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_nodes or get_link_results, so it stops short of a 5.

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