atmosphere_from_epw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the backwards-compatibility default ('defaults reproduce prior output'), names the exact model (van Heuklon 1979) and inputs (lat/lon + date) for ozone_mode, states the default 0.65 asymmetry that aerosol_g overrides, and explains the Angstrom-exponent wavelength conversion in aod_anchor_nm. It leaves 'provenance' and any error/validation behavior unexplained, but the core computational behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two dense sentences that earn their place, with the core output list front-loaded ahead of the refinements. The 'Opt-in refinements (defaults reproduce prior output):' header efficiently groups the three tuning parameters. Only minor redundancy exists in restating the default 0.65 within aerosol_g's clause, so no meaningful waste.

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 format need not be explained. Yet the description misses several things an agent needs: the epw input format, the semantics of the required date/time parameters, the meaning of 'provenance' in the output, and any usage-vs-sibling routing. The algorithmic core is solidly covered, but for a 7-parameter scientific tool with zero annotations these gaps keep it from being 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. It clearly explains the three optional refinements (ozone_mode, aerosol_g, aod_anchor_nm) with their exact effects. However, it says nothing about the four required parameters—especially epw, whose format (path vs. inline content) is genuinely ambiguous—nor about month/day/hour semantics such as timezone or year context. Covering 3 of 7 parameters at zero schema coverage is partial compensation.

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 states a clear derived product ('Derived atmospheric state (AOD, PWV, ozone, pressure, albedo, aerosol_g + provenance)') with an explicit output list and a derivation-from-EPW relationship. It distinguishes itself from siblings like spectral_epw by focusing on atmospheric-state quantities rather than spectral conversion, though it never names a sibling directly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spectral_sky_from_epw, spectral_epw, or weather. The description explains internal refinements but never states a triggering condition, prerequisite (e.g., valid EPW format), or exclusion such as 'for sky radiance use spectral_sky_from_epw instead.'

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