Query Water Conditions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses data sources and that no API key is needed, which is useful. However, it omits critical behavior: error handling for unsupported cities, rate limits, data freshness/update frequency, and what the response looks like.

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?

Information is front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured by country. Sentences are efficient and earn their place. Could be slightly tighter by combining the country bullets.

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 tool with 2 parameters (one enum) and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what data is returned and source constraints. However, it lacks error behavior, output format details, and explicit tool selection guidance, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by listing the countries supported and noting auto-detection, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Get') and resource ('real-time water monitoring data') with clear scope (US/UK/CA cities). Distinguishes itself from siblings like query_weather or query_air_quality by naming the data sources and metrics (streamflow, levels, discharge). However, it doesn't explicitly explain how it differs from query_city_data, which might be a broader aggregator.

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?

Implicitly tells when to use it (need real-time water data for a supported country), but provides no explicit when-not-to-use criteria or named alternatives. The country auto-detection and ambiguity warning imply usage context but don't guide selection among sibling tools.

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