get_high_low_tides

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only notes that the tides are 'astronomical' and the location is HK, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, specify any limitations (e.g., year range, station validity), or mention the timezone of the returned times. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get times, heights of astronomical high/low tides for a station in HK.' It is concise and contains no filler, efficiently stating the core function. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it loses one point for under-specification in favor of brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description is too sparse for complete context. It does not mention how to obtain valid station codes (e.g., via get_tide_station_codes), specify the timezone of times, or clarify acceptable year values. Although an output schema exists and return values are therefore covered, the missing input and prerequisite information makes the tool under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only hints that 'station' refers to a station in HK, but it provides no meaning for 'year' (e.g., format, allowed range) or 'options' (which is an object but undefined). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the lack of 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?

The description uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource: 'times, heights of astronomical high/low tides'. It scopes the operation to 'a station in HK', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hourly_tides (which provides hourly data) and get_tide_station_codes (which returns station codes). The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_tide_station_codes should be used to obtain valid station codes, nor does it contrast with get_hourly_tides. There is no explicit context or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.

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