list_stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data from the IWLS API and can filter by name and operating status, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination behavior, default limit, or whether the list is sorted. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-line summary, then provides a brief elaboration and a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, the data source, and the use case. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the return format, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a simple list, this is a minor omission.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, search_term, operating_only) with descriptions. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning 'filter by name and operating status' which maps to search_term and operating_only. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List available tide monitoring stations' and 'retrieves a list of monitoring stations from the IWLS API.' It also mentions filtering by name and operating status, which distinguishes it from the sibling forecast tools. The verb 'list' and resource 'stations' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says the tool is 'Useful for discovering station names before using the get_tide_forecast tool,' which provides clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different (forecast vs. list), so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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