get_water_temperature

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description is not required to cover those. It adds value by specifying that results include both Celsius and Fahrenheit, but lacks other behavioral details like data freshness or caching.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and output format. It is appropriately concise, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema and safety annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. However, it fails to document the required parameter, which is a notable gap in completeness for a simple tool.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the required site_id parameter or explain its meaning. It misses the opportunity to clarify what site_id refers to (e.g., a monitoring site identifier).

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('water temperature'), and output specifics ('Celsius and Fahrenheit values'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_water_level or get_flow by specifying the exact measurement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_water_level, get_observations). The description lacks context for choosing this tool among many similar get_* tools.

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