Climate Projection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that outputs come from CMIP6 models, and it omits notable behaviors such as the default bias correction (and how disable_bias_correction changes results), the historical-vs-projection date range limits, and any cost or rate considerations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is efficiently structured. It is under-specified rather than padded, which is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no output schema and 46% schema coverage, the description is far too thin: it does not explain valid projection time horizons, what the returned data looks like, or how scenario framing maps to the provided parameters. An agent would need to guess at much of the invocation behavior.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 46% schema description coverage, the description should carry real weight, but it only loosely gestures at the models parameter ('CMIP6 models') and introduces an unbacked 'warming scenarios' concept. The daily variable list, unit options, timezone, cell_selection, and bias-correction flag receive no clarification beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('climate change projections'), and source ('CMIP6 models'), which clearly separates it from the near-term weather-forecast siblings like gfs_forecast or weather_forecast. It falls short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name any sibling it complements or excludes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over seasonal_forecast or the various forecast tools, nor any prerequisites for date ranges. The mention of 'different warming scenarios' is unhelpful because no scenario parameter exists in the schema, so the agent receives no actionable selection criteria.

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