env_bathing_water

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains data source, temporal scope (annual updates, no real-time), and the difference between overview and detail modes based on location parameter. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.

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 well-structured with clear sections, including a use case and important notes. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is concise yet informative.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with good annotations and schema, the description covers all essential aspects: data source, temporal update frequency, parameter behavior, and return format. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters (limit, canton, location, response_format). The description adds behavioral nuance about location parameter (overview vs detail) but does not significantly extend schema meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 bathing water quality data from BAFU survey, specifying data type (E.coli/Enterokokken), geographic scope (Swiss lakes and rivers), and temporal scope (multi-year since 2020). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on hydrology, air quality, etc.

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 includes explicit use cases ('prüfen ob man baden kann' and listing stations by canton) and important notes about behavior with/without location parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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