query_noaa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns 'Raw JSON response from NOAA API,' which hints at read-only behavior, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'raw' implies (e.g., unprocessed data). This is inadequate for a tool with potential API complexities.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the examples more seamlessly.

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's complexity (raw API queries with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error cases, or how to interpret the raw JSON response, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an agent.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'endpoint' with examples like '/points/38.8894,-77.0352' and '/alerts/active,' and clarifies 'params' as 'Optional query parameters as a dictionary,' compensating well for the schema's lack of documentation.

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's purpose as 'Make a raw query to the NOAA Weather API,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_global_weather' or 'get_weather_forecast,' which likely provide more structured access to similar 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it's for 'raw' queries but doesn't explain scenarios where this is preferable over more specific tools like 'get_weather_forecast' or 'get_weather_alerts,' leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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