OpenSenseMap Station Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact fields returned, the typical 3–12 sensor range, and the common sensor types with units. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect from the response.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, followed by returned fields, usage guidance, and context. The sensor type list (temperature, humidity, PM2.5, etc.) is a bit long but provides practical value in helping the agent understand the data domain. 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, where the input comes from, how to use it downstream, and even source/license. No critical information needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 box_id as a 24-character MongoDB ObjectId with an example. The description reinforces that box_id comes from box_search results, but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the weight.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Get full metadata and sensor list for a specific OpenSenseMap sensor station by its box ID." It clearly enumerates what is returned (station metadata, sensor list with IDs, titles, units, latest values) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like box_search (obtain box_id) and sensors.timeseries (downstream use).

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 when-to-use guidance: "Use this to discover the sensor IDs needed for sensor_timeseries calls" and "Obtain the box_id from box_search results." It gives strong context and prerequisites, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like sensors.latest or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of the 5-level bar.

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