Nivel del río en una estación de Salto Grande

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: readings every 15 minutes, per-day aggregation, a 92-day maximum window and a 14-day default. It does not discuss behavior at the window limit or how a station name is resolved, keeping it just short of 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then parameters, then the sibling fork. Every clause adds information — the interval, the aggregation, the window limits and the default — with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description still summarizes the return shape (min/mean/max, latest, delta), so an agent has enough to call it confidently. The one gap is the relationship to nivel_rio_comparado, which an agent must infer.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it largely does: `estacion` accepts a name or an id (default Salto), `desde`/`hasta` are AAAA-MM-DD with a 92-day cap and a 14-day default. Only edge behavior (invalid station, dates beyond the limit) is left unstated.

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?

States a specific resource (river height H at a Salto Grande Mixed Technical Commission station) and exactly what it returns: daily min/mean/max, latest reading and net change over the period. It is clearly distinct from siblings like nivel_rio_comparado and estaciones_cercanas, which it names as the alternative for locating a station.

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?

Gives explicit routing for one sibling: 'Para encontrar una estación cerca de un lugar, usar estaciones_cercanas.' It also implies the appropriate scope (historical window up to 92 days, default 14). It does not, however, state when to prefer this over nivel_rio_comparado, which is presumably the multi-station comparison tool.

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