nws_glossary

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no contradictory information. It adds context that the glossary covers 'terms and abbreviations,' but it does not disclose output structure, size, or whether it is searchable—though for a zero-parameter tool the behavior is fairly self-evident. With annotations covering the safety profile, this 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 one sentence, front-loaded with action and object, with no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only annotation, glossary return), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it returns. It could mention that it returns the full glossary or a list, but that is implied by 'Get glossary.' Overall, sufficient for the low complexity.

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?

Since the input schema has zero properties, schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'NWS weather glossary' with the clarifying detail 'definitions of weather terms and abbreviations.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling NWS tools like nws_forecast or nws_alerts_active. It meets the 'specific verb+resource' criterion.

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 its use case—looking up definitions of weather terms—but provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance or alternative comparisons. It doesn't mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for related needs, so usage context is only implied.

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