nc_get_rain_stations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not mention whether the output is a list, whether it supports pagination, data freshness, or any other behavioral traits. For a tool exposing a list of stations, the description is under-informative.

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 gets to the point without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with a hint of what the output contains. It earns a 4 for efficient use of words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks details about the expected output format (e.g., list of station names, coordinates) or any special behavior. It is not misleading, but it could be more complete to help the agent set expectations. A 3 reflects adequate but not rich context.

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 description coverage is 100% since the only parameter 'commune' has a description 'Filter by commune'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, with high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'rain measurement (pluviometry) stations' with a geographic qualifier 'in New Caledonia'. This effectively conveys what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like nc_get_weather_stations, which could also relate to rainfall data, so it misses a clear differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nc_get_weather_stations or nc_get_reef_stations. The description provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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