nc_get_water_catchments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose, not behavior such as read-only nature, pagination, error handling, or response format. The description offers no behavioral context beyond what a straightforward 'get' implies.

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 with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it lacks structured context, but it earns points for efficiency.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't mention defaults, filtering semantics, or the nature of the results. An agent would have to rely on the schema alone, and the description offers no examples or additional context to ensure correct usage.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it relies on the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description contributes nothing additional.

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' with a specific resource 'water catchment points for drinking water supply in New Caledonia'. This distinguishes it from most siblings that target other data types (weather, mining, facilities). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools, but the resource is specific enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other data retrieval tools. There is no mention of use cases, filters, or alternatives. The agent must infer from the resource name alone, which is vague without context.

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