coops_meteorological

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description's contribution is limited to enumerating product types. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like date-range restrictions, default units/timezone, or output format, which would enrich transparency. The description is consistent with the annotation, adding minimal extra context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get', and zero filler. The product list is brief and directly supports the tool's purpose. Both sentences contribute useful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 rich input schema (100% coverage, enums, defaults), the description is nearly sufficient on its own. It lacks details on return values (no output schema) and does not explain date shortcut semantics, but the schema already documents defaults. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for known station IDs and products.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of the 7 parameters, including enums and examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's product list merely repeats the 'product' enum values without adding new semantics. It does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., date vs begin_date/end_date), but that gap is acceptable since the schema already provides individual descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names both the data source ('NOAA CO-OPS station') and the product categories, making it clear which resource is accessed. The product list distinguishes it from sibling CO-OPS tools (e.g., coops_water_level, coops_tide_predictions) that target non-meteorological data.

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 implies this tool is for station-based meteorological products by listing them, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as NWS observation tools or other CO-OPS endpoints. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so the guidance is indirect rather than direct.

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