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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe read operation. The description does not contradict this. It adds context about product types, which is more about output content than behavior. It does not disclose any potential side effects (none expected), rate limits, or error conditions, but given the read-only nature and output schema availability, this is acceptable but not enriched beyond the annotation.

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, starting with the primary purpose and then enumerating product types with brief explanations. Each sentence earns its place, and no fluff or redundancy exists. The structure front-loads the core function and flows logically to supporting details.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return formats are covered there. The description covers the essential parameters and product types, and mentions the source of the office code. It is complete for a simple read-only tool. It could theoretically mention that the output is free text, but that is implicit and handled by the output schema. Overall, nothing critical is missing.

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%, with both parameters (office and product_type) having detailed descriptions in the schema. The description repeats the product type explanations, adding little beyond the schema. The only additional value is the mention that office comes from nws_get_forecast, but the schema already says that. Since the schema carries the load, the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding, so a 3 is appropriate.

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's function: retrieving the latest narrative forecast product from a WFO. It names the default product (AFD) and lists the other product types, distinguishing it from siblings like nws_get_forecast (which likely provides structured forecast data) and nws_get_zone_forecast (which may return similar text but focused on zones). The verb 'get' and resource 'office discussion' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use the tool by explaining what each product type is (e.g., AFD explains reasoning, HWO is an outlook, etc.). It also references nws_get_forecast as the source for the office code, which is helpful for chaining. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over nws_get_zone_forecast or other siblings, leaving that to inference from the product descriptions. Still, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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