pvsyst_review_weather

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does: nothing is written, hashed, or simulated; the CSV is re-inspected with the hash-free value checker rather than trusting a stored manifest; native .MET/.SIT fields are read from headers only. It also discloses the status vocabulary (blocked vs needs_review) and precisely enumerates what the review does not certify.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence carries substantive information. It is dense and runs long, but the length is largely justified by the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers safety, provenance handling, limitations, and status outcomes. It stops short of describing the review-item structure returned and leaves the successful status value unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it names all five parameters with meaning beyond their titles: which workspace directory each CSV lives in, that year is a strict integer under review, and that the two manifests are optional and supply acquisition provenance and declared time basis.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource: review a prepared weather CSV against a native result, read-only. That scope distinguishes it implicitly from the single-file sibling pvsyst_inspect_weather_csv, though it never names the sibling to route the agent explicitly.

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?

It makes clear the preconditions (one prepared CSV in workspace/Meteo, one exported hourly result in workspace/Results, an integer year) and repeatedly frames the operation as a review that does not certify specific quantities. It gives no explicit 'use X instead when Y' statement against the nearby weather siblings.

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