get_flow_anomaly

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that the comparison uses the latest observation, the as_of parameter selects the comparison date, and how sites without normal statistics are handled. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information without redundancy. No fluff.

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 complexity (anomaly detection with historical stats, reliability flags), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, optional parameter, handling of missing stats, and interpretation guidance. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the as_of parameter (optional, ISO date for comparison day) and implies site_id by context. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the parameter's role and edge cases.

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 it compares current discharge with median and percentiles for a given date, using the verb 'compare' and the resource 'discharge with median and percentiles'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_flow (raw current flow) and get_daily_flow (daily averages).

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 for anomaly detection by comparing current flow to historical statistics for a date. It also provides guidance on interpreting results when ratio_reliable is false. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_flow_anomalies (plural) or get_statistics.

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