import_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals that the tool returns a summary (wea_summary) rather than full arrays, explaining the response budget constraint, and mentions that the subset .wea is written to disk. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not address auth, reversibility, or side effects beyond file creation.

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 concise, consisting of two short paragraphs. The primary purpose is stated upfront, followed by important behavioral details. It avoids unnecessary fluff and front-loads the key information, though it could be slightly tighter by merging the two paragraphs.

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?

The tool has an output schema and the description summarizes the return value (wea_summary contents). It also covers the main use cases and limitations (response budget). For a tool with four optional parameters and a straightforward purpose, the description is largely complete, though edge cases and error handling are not mentioned.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of period and subset_out, but does not mention wea_path or timestep_min. The description adds value for two of four parameters, leaving the others to be inferred from names and defaults. This is partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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's purpose: ingest a .wea file and/or decompose an analysis period into HOY and wea line numbers. It uses specific verbs (ingest, decompose) and identifies the resource (.wea). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like weather or generate_subhourly_wea, so the differentiation is implicit.

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 guidance on using period + subset_out to get the needed rows, which helps with parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide conditions for when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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