nws_describe_entity

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It signals a read-style introspection and adds a genuinely useful nuance that value types are 'observed' (inferred from actual data, not declared schema), but it never states that the call is side-effect free, what happens for an unknown entity_type, or whether results are cached/sampled.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and the returned content. Nothing repeats the name or title, and nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the description explains what kind of data comes back, which is most of the burden for a one-parameter introspection tool. The remaining gap is the origin/format of the entity_type argument, which is left to the caller to guess.

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 coverage is 0% and there are no enums, so the single parameter 'entity_type' is entirely undocumented in structured data. The description merely echoes the phrase 'entity type' without saying whether it expects a machine name, a display label, or a value obtained from nws_entity_types — the one thing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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?

States a specific verb (describe) and resource (entity type), plus the payload it returns: friendly field names and observed value types. That clearly separates it from data-fetching siblings like nws_get, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from nws_entity_types, which likely enumerates the same entity types.

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 introspection framing implies this is a schema/metadata lookup to run before building a query, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisite (does the entity_type need to exist?), and names no alternative. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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