nws_observation_history

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

With readOnlyHint=true already conveying safe read behavior, the description adds value by specifying that multiple observations are returned including temperature, wind, humidity, etc., and that date range filtering is available. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 has four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return contents, and optional filtering. It omits details like default limit and relationships to sibling observation tools, but overall it is adequately complete for a simple data retrieval 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 parameters are fully documented (station_id, start, end, limit). The description mentions optional date range filtering and return contents but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'observation history from a weather station' and notes it returns multiple observations with weather fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like nws_observation_latest and nws_forecast, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 context that this tool is for recent observation history with multiple observations and optional date range filtering, implying use when historical/current weather observation series are needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic differentiation.

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