avalanche_danger_rating_by_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait - falling back to the nearest zone when the point is outside all polygons - but says nothing about data source, staleness, auth, rate limits, or what happens when no zone is found at all.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the fallback caveat is correctly placed second as a qualifier.

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 full-coverage geo lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what it returns (danger rating plus forecast metadata) and how the out-of-polygon case resolves. It omits the no-zone-found outcome and data freshness, but is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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 lat, lon, centerId, and preferNearest are already fully documented in the schema, including the default for preferNearest. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Get) and resource (current avalanche danger rating plus forecast metadata) and pins the spatial scope to the zone containing a lat/lon point. The word 'current' implicitly separates it from the sibling historic_avalanche_danger_rating_by_point, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'current' signals this is the real-time counterpart to the historic tool, and the fallback sentence hints at when nearest-zone behavior applies. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer routing.

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