NOAA Fisheries Landings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the authoritative source (fisheries.noaa.gov), that it is public US Government data, and that no auth is required. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but it earns credit for the provenance and auth disclosures.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; the provenance/auth sentence is compact and informative. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, its data source, and its auth posture. The only gap is routing guidance among the NOAA Fisheries siblings, which is minor given the distinct landings scope.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters with examples and ranges. The description merely names the filter dimensions, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (search) and resource (US commercial/recreational fisheries landings), and enumerates the key dimensions (species, state, region, collection type, year range). It distinguishes itself clearly from the sibling survey tools (get_catch, search_species), which cover survey data rather than landings.

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 implies usage by listing the filterable dimensions but never states when to choose this tool over the NOAA Fisheries survey siblings, nor any prerequisites or constraints. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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