usgs_water_sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, meaning the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits, pagination, or return format, so it relies entirely on annotations.

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?

Two sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key details. However, the misleading mention of hydrologic unit slightly detracts from clarity.

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 search tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fails to mention return fields, pagination, or rate limits. The hydrologic unit inconsistency further reduces completeness.

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% and descriptions are provided, but the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It also incorrectly mentions 'hydrologic unit' as a filter option, which is not in the input schema, potentially confusing agents.

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 'Search' and the resource 'USGS water monitoring sites', with explicit criteria (state, county, hydrologic unit) and site type abbreviations that distinguish it from siblings like usgs_water_data.

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 implies usage by listing search parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., usgs_water_data for time series). No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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