hlt

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

With no annotations, the description reveals it is a read-only API call returning tide data. It explains the request format and response keys but omits details on rate limits, authentication, or error handling.

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 structured with a header, parameter list, example, and response keys. It is informative but slightly wordy; could be more concise by removing redundant parameter details already in schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by detailing JSON and CSV response keys. It covers all input parameters and provides an example, but lacks error scenarios or typical usage patterns.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by listing valid station codes, year range, and optional parameters with examples. The request example and response field explanations go beyond the schema.

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 retrieves 'Times and Heights of Astronomical High and Low Tides', using a direct verb and resource. It lists parameters, an example, and response keys, distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover other weather data like temperature, rainfall, and warnings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'flw', 'lhl', or other siblings. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool over others.

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