cyclone_get_notable_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns' a list, implying a read-only operation, and mentions 'small curated' which hints at limitations. It doesn't disclose side effects or authentication needs, but for a simple query tool this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and contains no redundant information. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose and scope. It could be more detailed about what constitutes 'notable' but is adequate for a basic tool.

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 schema covers the only parameter (territory) with a complete description ('Optional territory/country relevance filter'), so the tool description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('return') and identifies a clear resource ('a small curated list of notable recent South-West Indian Ocean cyclone events'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_current_activity and get_rsmc_archives by focusing on notable recent events for grounding and historical exploration.

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 phrase 'for prompt grounding and historical exploration' provides a clear usage context, indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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