get_surf_forecast7 day surf forecast (wave height in feet, wave period in seconds, wind speed in mph, wind direction in degrees) for the nearest coastal forecast point to a latitude/longitude. Data from NOAA wave models.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees (-90 to 90) | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees (-180 to 180) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data returned (wave height, period, wind speed, direction) with units and source (NOAA wave models). No mention of destructive actions, which is acceptable for a forecast tool.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence covers purpose and output details; second adds data source. Extremely efficient.
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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information about inputs (lat/lon) and outputs (forecast details with units). No obvious gaps given the low complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the tool finds the nearest coastal forecast point, which is not in the schema. This clarifies the tool's behavior beyond mere coordinate input.
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' and the resource 'surf forecast'. It specifies the returned data types and units (wave height, period, wind speed, direction), and differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'nearest coastal forecast point' given coordinates, implying an alternative by spot ID.
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 when coordinates are available versus needing a spot name for the sibling tool, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool or alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when-not' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct input method: get_surf_forecast uses latitude/longitude, get_surf_forecast_by_spot uses a named spot, and list_surf_spots returns a list of spots. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_surf_forecast, get_surf_forecast_by_spot, list_surf_spots. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 3 tools, the server is slightly small but still reasonable for its focused domain. Additional tools like a spot detail or search could enhance completeness, but the count is not problematic.
The server covers the primary use cases: forecast by coordinates, forecast by named spot, and listing spots. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no spot details, no date range specification), but the core functionality is well-covered.