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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it is a 'FREE preview' and mentions data sources (reported and radar-detected), which is useful but does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or whether the preview is limited in depth. It does not contradict 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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the key points (FREE preview, data source, scope, and output types). It is concise with no wasted words, though it is somewhat long and could be split for readability. Still, it 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent will receive (event counts, types, severities, repeat-hit properties). It also clarifies the preview nature and county scope. It does not mention limits like max days (but that's in schema) or any prerequisites, but overall it is complete enough for a read-only preview tool.

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%, and the descriptions are detailed (e.g., peril explains exact names, min_severity gives an example). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb (preview/reported and radar-detected), a clear resource (past storm events), and a precise scope (for a county). It enumerates the outputs (event counts, storm types, severities, repeat-hit properties), making it unambiguous what the tool does and distinct from siblings like get_risk_forecast or get_weather_data.

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 for retrieving past storm history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions (e.g., 'for forecasts use get_risk_forecast'). The context is clear enough from the name and description, but there is no direct routing guidance.

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