Check dry spell / drought status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention that severity thresholds are a general rule of thumb and not a calibrated index, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on data sources, update frequency, geographic coverage, rate limits, or what exactly the return value looks like. Significant behavioral traits are unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences. It is front-loaded, stating the core purpose first, followed by an important caveat. There is no unnecessary information, and every word adds value.

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 complexity of 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a caveat but lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., numerical values, severity categories) or any edge cases. It is minimally complete but could be enhanced to better inform the agent about the response format.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the agent can understand their meaning from the schema. The description does not add further explanation of parameters beyond mentioning 'lookback window' and 'dry days', but this is redundant given the schema's clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks consecutive dry days and total precipitation over a lookback window as a rough drought-risk indicator. It is specific about the resource (dry spell status) and the action (check). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_frost_and_heat_risk or get_growing_conditions, though the unique purpose is evident.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for drought risk assessment, but there is no explicit statement of when to use or when not to use, nor mentions of prerequisites or contextual cues. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and purpose alone.

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