nhd-surface-water-404-screener

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads live from the official government source, that one asset always produces exactly one row, and that layer 4 lacks NHDPlus value-added attributes. It also explains the default clamping behavior for parameters. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-only screening tool.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key outputs, then dives into parameter details. It's long but every sentence earns its place—the example with five sites is verbose but serves as a powerful calibration for the agent. The structure is logical: purpose, outputs, source, then parameter semantics.

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 tool's complexity (94 fields, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the output fields, the jurisdictional call, the data source, and parameter behavior. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the output format (e.g., whether results are returned as a dataset or inline), but the absence of an output schema and the tool's nature as a screener make this less critical.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the standard shape for assets, provides a detailed example with five prefilled sites that deliberately cover the range of outcomes, and gives practical guidance for radiusMeters (Phase-I ESA vs utility-scale). The includeNonNetworkFlowlines parameter is well-explained with trade-offs.

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 screens lat/lon coordinates against NHDPlus HR surface water data, listing the 94 output fields and the jurisdictional-likelihood call. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fws-wetlands-proximity-screener by focusing on NHD surface water and Section 404/WOTUS flags, and it names the specific government source.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (screening any lat/lon against NHD surface water) and includes practical guidance in the parameter descriptions (e.g., radiusMeters for Phase-I ESA vs utility-scale siting). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list and the tool's specific scope make the usage context clear.

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