swpc_aurora_forecast

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It adds the 24-hour time window, northern hemisphere scope, and OVATION model source. It does not describe exact return format or pagination, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the added context is useful and non-contradictory.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds useful model and behavioral detail without redundancy or filler. Every 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, no-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the essential scope: time range, region, model, and a behavior note. However, since there is no output schema, it could have been more explicit about the return structure (e.g., probability values by latitude), which keeps it from full completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% by default; the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to document nonexistent parameters, so no further requirement exists.

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 returns a 24-hour northern hemisphere aurora probability forecast, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aurora probability forecast'). Mentioning the OVATION model distinguishes it from sibling SWPC tools like swpc_forecast or swpc_kp_index.

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 usage for aurora forecasts but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as swpc_forecast or swpc_kp_index. The note about higher probabilities at higher latitudes during geomagnetic activity provides context for interpreting results, but no direct when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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