Global Surfari Surf Forecasts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context about data source (NOAA wave models) and units, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the most important information (what it provides, units, and data source). 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the forecast duration, variables, units, and data source. It could improve by describing the return format, but it is sufficient for a straightforward 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both latitude and longitude documented), so baseline is 3. The description provides no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 provides a 7-day surf forecast for coordinates, listing variables and data source. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools (get_surf_forecast_by_spot, list_surf_spots), relying on the name to imply coordinate-based input.

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 coordinate-based queries and mentions 'nearest coastal forecast point,' but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_surf_forecast_by_spot or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the non-obvious two-step resolution process (saved locations first, then geocoding), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but the read-only nature is reasonably inferred.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides behavioral detail and examples. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 has only one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the input, resolution process, and provides examples. However, it lacks any description of the output format (e.g., wave height, wind), which the agent might need to know, but this is partially compensated by the tool's name suggesting a standard surf forecast.

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 schema defines parameter 'name' with description 'Surf spot or beach name'. The tool description adds significant context by providing examples and explaining that the tool tries saved locations first before geocoding, clarifying how the parameter is resolved beyond its basic type.

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 tool provides a '7 day surf forecast for a named surf spot', specifying the resource (forecast), time range (7 days), and unique input method (named spot). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_surf_forecast (which likely uses coordinates/ID) and list_surf_spots (which lists spots).

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 context by mentioning the fallback from saved locations to geocoding, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_surf_forecast or list_surf_spots. No 'when not to use' or direct sibling comparison is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it lists spots and mentions popularity/recent addition, but lacks details on pagination, limits, data freshness, or sorting behavior.

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?

One concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function with 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable idea of what is returned (spots with popularity/recent hint). Could be more specific but sufficient for a simple list 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 tool has no parameters, so the schema fully covers them. The description adds context about the content (popular/recent), providing value beyond the empty schema.

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 uses the verb 'lists' and specifies the resource 'surf spots saved by Global Surfari users' with qualifiers 'popular and recently added', clearly distinguishing from sibling forecast tools.

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?

Usage context is implied: it's for listing spots, while siblings are for forecasts. No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool, nor any alternatives mentioned.

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