tropical_cyclones

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the data source (NHC) and the current/active-only scope, which are meaningful behavioral facts. It omits freshness cadence, coverage basin limits (NHC covers Atlantic/Eastern Pacific only), and any error or empty-result behavior.

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?

A single tight clause with zero padding, and the most identifying facts (active, NHC, the field set) are front-loaded. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, which slightly weakens the opening but costs no length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the field list gives a good preview. However, for a tool with an unexplained 'detail' switch and no annotations, the description should have covered the parameter and the active-only scope more explicitly.

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 0% for the single 'detail' parameter, which has a default of 'short' but no description and no enum. The description never mentions 'detail' or what values it accepts or how verbosity changes the response, so the one non-obvious control is undocumented everywhere.

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?

Names a specific resource (active tropical cyclones) plus the upstream source (NHC) and the payload fields (center fix, classification, intensity, pressure), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like disaster_alerts, track_history, or climate_anomalies, but no sibling duplicates cyclone data, so ambiguity is low.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. The word 'active' implies a current-only snapshot, but the description never says to use track_history for past storms or disaster_alerts for general hazard coverage, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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