get_basin_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden but only partially meets it: it discloses the score range (0-100), the composite nature, and the contributing data sources. It does not explain how the composite is calculated, what happens for invalid or missing sites, or whether the return is just a score or includes supporting details.

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 with the purpose and data sources in the first sentence and the critical usage instruction in the second. Slight redundancy in 'bioregional basin/watershed' exists, but the description is well front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core inputs and score range but omits the exact return structure, error behavior, and the relationship between wqp_site_ids and usgs_site_numbers. It is adequate for a simple call but not fully self-contained.

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 applies. The description adds meaning only by emphasizing that all USGS site numbers must be passed together, reinforcing the array semantics; it adds no extra meaning for basin_name or the optional wqp_site_ids beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action: 'Get a composite... health score (0-100)' across a set of USGS monitoring sites. It names the data sources (EPA water-quality compliance and live flow-gauge coverage), which clearly differentiates it from siblings get_stream_flow and get_water_quality.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to 'Pass every USGS site number in the basin you want scored together,' which is the key usage requirement. It implies when to use this tool—when a combined basin-level score is needed rather than raw stream flow or water quality—but does not name explicit exclusions or fully contrast with siblings.

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