noaa_locations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description's 'Search' aligns with that. However, the description adds little beyond the annotation—no mention of pagination, defaults, or response format—so it provides minimal additional behavioral 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, examples, and purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple, with rich schema coverage and a read-only annotation, but the description does not mention output format or that calling it without parameters returns all locations. It leaves some context for the agent to infer, but it is adequate for a basic search tool.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema handle the details for limit, category, and dataset_id. The description adds examples like 'states, cities, countries' that map to category enum values, but no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: 'Search NOAA location IDs' with examples 'states, cities, countries' and explicitly ties it to 'use with other NOAA tools,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like noaa_stations. It lacks explicit differentiation from all possible alternatives but is specific enough to be more than vague.

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 phrase 'for use with other NOAA tools' implies when to use this tool (as a lookup before other NOAA queries) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the guidance at an implied level.

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