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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: soundings launch only at 00Z/12Z and can be hours old, and the result is the nearest sounding rather than an exact point measurement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then gives a dense but useful breakdown of the returned data, followed by a compact example. The long data-fields sentence is somewhat verbose but earns its place by showing the tool's output shape and capabilities.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool returns, gives an example, and warns about data freshness. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing between get_sounding and get_sounding_chart, and the n parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 n, lat, lon, and location all described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete locator example ("Norman, OK") but does not independently clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 returns the nearest RAOB vertical soundings to a point and enumerates the contained data, so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_sounding_chart, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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: call this when you need the nearest radiosonde profile data for a point, and it warns about data being hours old. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_sounding_chart or mention any alternative tools or exclusions.

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