climate.station-history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source, date range limit, that records go back to the 1800s, and that it returns measured values. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or data completeness. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence providing the core functionality and the second adding context and a prerequisite. It is efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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 tool has no output schema, the description fairly well explains the type of data returned (temperature, precipitation, snow, wind) and the date range constraint. It could be improved by clarifying the output structure or how to handle cases like missing data, but it covers the main elements.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the overall data returned and giving an example station ID format and the default dataTypes, but it does not deepen understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema.

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 retrieves historical daily weather observations from NOAA GHCN-Daily for one station and a date range, listing specific data fields and units. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool climate.station-near by instructing to find a station ID with that tool first.

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 guides the user to first find a station ID using climate.station-near and specifies the date range limit of ≤366 days. While it does not mention when not to use, the purpose is well-scoped and the prerequisite is clear.

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