singapore_get_wind_speed

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the units convention and a warning about consuming local offsets before reusing the upstream pagination token, but that sentence is jargon-heavy and does not clarify what a 'timestamp group' is or how paging actually behaves.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource and units front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence about offsets and the pagination token is dense to the point of being opaque, which slightly weakens an otherwise efficient structure.

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 need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 7-parameter tool with 0 required params and 14% schema coverage, the description omits how station/region/area narrow results and how the reading set is grouped, leaving real gaps for an agent choosing arguments.

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 only 14% (only `date` is documented in the schema), so the description has to carry weight. It touches date locality, limit/offset interplay and pagination_token handling, but leaves `area`, `region` and `station_id` — the parameters that most affect which readings are returned — completely unexplained.

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 names the specific resource (NEA wind speed) with units (knots) and source, which clearly separates it from siblings like singapore_get_wind_direction or singapore_get_air_temperature. It never uses an explicit verb, but 'wind speed (knots)' is unambiguous alongside the tool name.

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?

'Singapore local dates; latest if omitted' implies the default behaviour (return the most recent reading) but gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against the other weather-reading siblings. Usage is only inferable.

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