Get Park Weather

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the dual data types returned (real-time 'forecast conditions' and historical 'monthly normals'), which helps the agent understand the tool's data scope beyond what annotations provide.

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 single 12-word sentence is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and contains zero filler. However, it packs multiple concepts (forecast, normals, trip planning) that could benefit from slight structural separation for clarity.

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 parameter complexity (4 params with oneOf logic) and lack of output schema, the description minimally suffices by stating the return value types. However, it omits critical parameter relationship logic and temporal filtering behavior (date vs. month) necessary for correct invocation.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage (date and month are described; park_id and park_name lack descriptions), the description fails to compensate. It only vaguely references 'at a specific park' without clarifying the mutually exclusive park_id/park_name requirement (via oneOf) or explaining whether date and month are alternative filters for different data types.

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 specifies the action ('Return'), resource ('forecast conditions and monthly normals'), and scope ('at a specific park'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_park_details or find_campsites. However, it uses the generic verb 'Return' rather than a stronger retrieval verb, and doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential weather-related 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 phrase 'for trip planning' provides vague contextual usage but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_park_details for general info), no prerequisites mentioned, and no exclusions or error conditions described.

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