get_water_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves historical data but doesn't describe what 'historical' entails (e.g., how far back data goes), response format (e.g., time series, units), error handling (e.g., invalid station IDs), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Get historical river/lake water level data') and its scope ('for a Swiss hydrological station'), with zero waste or redundancy. This is appropriately concise for a straightforward data retrieval tool.

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 moderate complexity (historical data retrieval with 3 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., data format, limitations) and usage guidelines. The high schema coverage helps, but without annotations or output schema, more context on behavior and results would improve 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Hydro station ID', 'Start date YYYY-MM-DD'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain station ID formats, date range constraints, or data granularity. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get historical river/lake water level data for a Swiss hydrological station.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('historical river/lake water level data'), and geographic scope ('Swiss hydrological station'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_water_level' (which likely provides current data) or 'get_weather_history' (which is weather-related, not water levels).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_water_level' (likely for current water levels) or 'list_hydro_stations' (for station listings), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid station ID) or contextual constraints (e.g., date range limitations). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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