get_tide_station_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only says 'get list', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose the absence of side effects, any permission requirements, or behavior related to the 'lang' parameter. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information: what the tool returns and for which location. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

While the output schema exists (which could explain return values), the description is incomplete because it omits the 'lang' parameter semantics and provides no usage guidance relative to sibling tools. For a simple list tool, the lack of parameter documentation and contextual instructions leaves notable gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has one parameter 'lang' with default 'en' and zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its semantics undetermined. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it fails to provide any guidance on language options or how the parameter affects the output.

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's function: retrieving a list of tide station codes and names in Hong Kong. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('tide station codes and names'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tide tools like get_hourly_tides and get_high_low_tides which return actual tide data, not 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 the tool is used for obtaining station codes needed for tide reports, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or that it should be called before other tide endpoints.

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