usgs_daily_water_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about aggregated daily means being better for trend analysis, but does not disclose other behaviors like default date range, rate limits, or how sites are specified (single vs multiple).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key distinction from real-time data. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no required, no output schema), the description explains the data type, parameter codes, and date behavior. It might benefit from mentioning how to specify multiple sites or the response format, but those are minor gaps.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds some value by explaining the meaning of parameter codes (e.g., 00060=discharge) and the significance of start_dt overriding period, but the schema already provides examples and defaults.

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 returns USGS daily value water data, contrasting with real-time data, and lists parameter codes. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like usgs_water_data (which may be real-time) and usgs_water_statistics (statistics, not daily values).

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?

It explains the tool is for historical daily averages, useful for trend analysis, and implies not for real-time data. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like usgs_water_data or usgs_water_statistics, nor does it list exclusions beyond the real-time contrast.

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