sea_forecast

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the provider (IPMA) and the covered measures, implying Portuguese coastal coverage, but says nothing about units (metres vs feet, °C), whether place or lat/lon wins when both are supplied, or what happens for an unknown spot.

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-loads the purpose in one sentence and then gives a compact Args block; there is essentially no filler. The Args formatting is slightly redundant with the schema but remains easy to scan.

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-value detail is not required, but for a tool with four undocumented-schema parameters and no annotations, the description should also cover units and place/lat-lon precedence. It is adequate to call the tool but not fully complete.

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 largely does: it gives example place values ('Nazaré', 'Peniche', 'Faro', 'Funchal'), explains the lat/lon fallback to the nearest spot, and decodes day (0=today, 1=tomorrow, 2=day after). Only the precedence between place and lat/lon and the neither-provided case are left unstated.

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?

States a specific resource (coastal sea forecast) plus the exact quantities returned: wave height and period, wave direction, sea temperature, with the data source (IPMA) named. This distinguishes it from the land-oriented weather_forecast sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent must infer that this is the tool for sea/beach conditions rather than general weather. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. weather_forecast) to disambiguate the two forecast tools.

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