maritime_wind_direction_by_year

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return format (JSON or text), coverage (97.5%), and period (1662-1854), and explains behavioral traits like ENSO analysis. It lacks explicit mention of non-destructive nature, but the read-only intent is clear.

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 comprehensive but somewhat lengthy, with separate 'Args' and 'Tips' sections. It is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but could be more concise. However, every sentence adds value, so it earns a mid-range score.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains return values ('per-year sector distributions') and provides extensive context on coverage, period, ENSO detection, and parameter usage. It fully compensates for missing annotations and schema details, making it complete for an AI 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists all 13 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Bounding box filter', 'Year range filter'), adding meaning beyond the raw schema. While not exhaustive, it covers each parameter's role sufficiently for an AI agent.

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 returns year-by-year wind direction distributions from CLIWOC logbooks, with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource '8-compass-sector wind direction distributions'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on wind direction and ENSO detection, a unique capability among the listed tools.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance in the 'Tips for LLMs' section, including when to use (e.g., for ENSO detection, trade wind analysis) and contextual constraints (e.g., 97.5% coverage, 1662-1854 period). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the tips effectively guide selection.

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