nws_forecast_hourly

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no need to restate that. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return data (hourly periods with temperature, wind, and conditions) and the auto-resolve behavior for lat/lon. However, it does not mention rate limits, error conditions, or other operational nuances, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence provides necessary information: the type of forecast, the two parameter alternatives, and the return fields. No word is wasted, and it is easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It names the return fields (temperature, wind, conditions) but lacks details like units, timezone, or forecast period count. It also assumes the user knows what a 'point lookup' is, though that is reasonable given the sibling tool nws_point_lookup. Overall, it is functional but leaves some ambiguity.

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 input schema already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, including clues like 'auto-resolves grid if office not provided.' The description reinforces the EITHER/OR relationship between parameter groups, which is somewhat redundant but helpful. It does not add meaningfully beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: get hourly weather forecast. It specifies the resource (NWS) and the verb (get), and the word 'hourly' distinguishes it from the related nws_forecast tool. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like nws_forecast, so it falls short of a 5.

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 detailed guidance on how to invoke the tool: either use (office + grid_x + grid_y) from a point lookup, or use (latitude + longitude) to auto-resolve. This is clear invocation context, but it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nws_forecast for non-hourly forecasts). The guidance is implied but not explicit about competition between tools.

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