get_hawaii_weatherCurrent weather, forecast, and surf/wind conditions for any Hawaiian island. Use this when users ask 'what's the weather in Maui this week' or 'is it good surf conditions on the North Shore today'. Returns temperature, precipitation, wind speed, UV index, and a 3-day forecast.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Days of forecast to return (1-7) | |
| island | Yes | Which Hawaiian island |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing return data: temperature, precipitation, wind speed, UV index, and a 3-day forecast. It does not contradict annotations. However, the phrase 'any Hawaiian island' is slightly overbroad given the island enum limits to four specific islands, though this is a minor limitation and not a behavioral contradiction.
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 concise at two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides usage triggers and return fields. There is no redundant text; every sentence earns its place.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description explains what is returned (temperature, precipitation, wind speed, UV index, 3-day forecast) and gives concrete usage cases. It does not mention units or island restrictions, but the schema provides those constraints. For a simple weather tool, this is sufficiently complete.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'island' and 'days'. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond examples like 'Maui' and 'North Shore', but these are not necessary since the schema already explains the parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 'Current weather, forecast, and surf/wind conditions for any Hawaiian island,' which specifies the main function with a verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like restaurants, deals, events, and tours, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
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 explicitly gives usage examples ('what's the weather in Maui this week' or 'is it good surf conditions on the North Shore today'), clearly indicating when to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools cover different domains, making it clear the weather tool is the right choice for weather/surf queries.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct resources: restaurants, weather, events, and itineraries are unambiguous. However, get_hawaii_deals and search_hawaii_tours both cover tours/activities, and plan_hawaii_day overlaps with restaurant and tour tools, creating some potential for misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_hawaii_object pattern (find_, get_, plan_, search_) using snake_case. The verbs are semantically appropriate and the pattern is predictable across the entire set.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Hawaii travel assistant. Each tool addresses a distinct travel need without unnecessary sprawl, and the count sits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
The surface covers food, tours, events, weather, deals, and day planning, which covers most visitor needs. Minor gaps exist—like lodging, transportation, or general attraction info—but agents can reasonably handle common Hawaii travel queries with this set.