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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the upstream source (NOAA NHC), the geographic scope (Atlantic only), and what the response contains (position, intensity, track, at-risk resorts), which helps an agent judge freshness and coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core resource and appends the resort-threat twist; no filler or repetition. It is slightly overloaded with fields in one clause but earns every word.

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 one-parameter, read-only query tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is close to sufficient: it states the data source, scope, and returned fields. Only per-parameter semantics and refresh cadence are left implicit.

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?

There is a single optional 'resort' parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'threatened resorts' aligns with the parameter but adds no format or matching semantics (e.g., exact resort name vs. free text).

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 names a specific resource (active Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes), a data source (NOAA NHC), and the payload (position, intensity, track, plus threatened Veabird resorts). That is well beyond a restated title, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from domain-adjacent siblings like travel_advisory or beach_conditions.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for hurricane-threat queries, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative such as travel_advisory for non-hurricane risk.

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