nws_stations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the search-mode distinction and the downstream use of station IDs, but it does not disclose behaviors like default limits, what happens when no parameters are provided, or output structure. This is acceptable 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the main action, the two search modes, and the downstream use of station IDs. 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?

For a simple, read-only lookup tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It covers the main purpose, search modes, and relationship to observation tools. It could mention default limit or no-parameter behavior, but these are minor gaps given the schema already provides parameter detail.

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 schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds a small amount of meaning by framing state and lat/lon as alternative search modes, but it does not elaborate on the limit parameter or provide syntax details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 finds weather observation stations, which is a specific verb+resource pair. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like nws_radar_stations by explicitly using 'weather observation' and by noting station IDs feed into observation tools.

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 usage context: search by state code or by latitude/longitude for nearby stations. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but it conveys when this tool is appropriate and how its output can be used downstream.

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