pvsyst_prepare_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: dry_run writes nothing, raw bytes are preserved, only columns/units are normalized, monthly CSV/MEF are created, warnings become needs_review, existing outputs are never overwritten, and failure artifacts are retained. It also correctly cautions that a prepared file is not native MET certification.

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 dense but front-loaded with purpose and required constraints, then behavior and downstream usage. Almost every clause adds operational value, though the long semicolon-heavy structure makes it harder to scan than it could be.

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?

For a complex orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does well on behavior and constraints. However, it does not fully document the seven inputs or the returned artifact structure, and the requiredness mismatch with the schema leaves an invocation ambiguity.

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%, so the description must explain seven parameters. It adds useful meaning for country_code, time_basis, and dry_run, but leaves year, csv_name, met_name, and sit_name largely unexplained, and its statement that country_code/time_basis are required conflicts with the schema showing zero required parameters and empty-string defaults.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: preparing NEW native SIT/MET plus a provenance manifest from one hourly CSV. It clearly scopes the operation to GHI/DHI/Tamb and distinguishes it from lower-level weather tools by describing the orchestration of create-site and convert-meteo.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope: preparing new native weather files from a CSV, not inspecting, acquiring, or reviewing one. It also names a downstream handoff to simulate_template, but it does not explicitly compare this tool against siblings such as inspect_weather_csv, acquire_weather, build_monthly_weather, or review_weather.

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