nws_text_products

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema provides. It does not disclose return format, pagination, error behavior, or any side effects, so it contributes little beyond the structured annotation.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately state the required and optional parameters. No filler or redundancy; each sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with strong schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficient. It communicates the resource, required input, and optional filter, though it does not describe the return format in the absence of an output schema.

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 already fully documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'requires a product type code' and 'optionally filter by WFO location' repeats schema information without adding new semantics, though the AFD/HWO examples are mildly helpful.

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') and a clear resource ('NWS text products'), with concrete examples (AFD, HWO) that distinguish it from sibling NWS tools like forecasts, alerts, observations, and zones. It also notes the required product type code, making the tool's scope immediately identifiable.

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 when to use the tool ('Get NWS text products like AFD, HWO, etc.') and mentions the required type plus optional WFO filter, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Usage context is present but not fully articulated.

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