faa_sigmet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns hazard advisories (turbulence, icing, convection, volcanic ash) and coverage scope, but does not disclose response format, pagination, or potential lack of output structure. This is consistent with the baseline for tools with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing distinct information: definition, returned hazard types, and scope. No redundancy or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description makes an effort to explain return content (hazardous weather advisories including types) and coverage. However, it does not convey the structure or fields of the returned advisories, which would be helpful for an agent to consume the response.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything vacuously. The description implies no input is needed, which aligns with the empty schema, earning the baseline 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 'Get active SIGMETs' with a specific verb and resource, expands the acronym, lists covered hazard types, and specifies national airspace coverage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like faa_metar and faa_taf.

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 gives clear context about when to use the tool (when active SIGMETs are needed, across national airspace) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as nws_aviation_sigmets or state when not to use it.

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