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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the lists are conditional on a cone touching Florida, units are mph, the source is NHC, and it explicitly frames itself as informational rather than authoritative ('follow the county's orders'). No coverage of what happens with zero active storms or with no parameters supplied.

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?

Front-loaded with the core resource and source, then builds outward to outputs and the conditional list behavior. It is a single dense sentence chain with no filler, though the length pushes readability and a slight pause or two would help scanning.

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?

With zero required parameters, a fully documented schema, an output-schema-less response, and safety annotations already in place, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and know what comes back. The one real gap is behavior when no qualifying storms exist or when no location input is given at all.

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 would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: land=true yields a 7-day stock-up list versus a boat tie-down list, and lat/lon is tied to 'when the center passes closest,' explaining why coordinates matter rather than just restating them. The 'place' parameter's role as an alternative to coordinates is clarified as well.

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 resource (active Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms), its authoritative source (NHC), and enumerates the returned fields: wind in mph, category, movement, cone coverage, closest approach, watches/warnings, and the tie-down or stock-up list. This is distinguishable at a glance from siblings like marine_forecast or live_conditions, which cover routine conditions rather than active tropical systems.

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?

Clear context for when to reach for it: cone coverage for a Florida place, a named place, or the lat/lon spot you supply, and land=true toggles the stock-up list instead of the boat list. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., vs. marine_forecast or inlet_watch) are given, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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