historic_avalanche_danger_rating_by_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the nearest-zone fallback behavior and mentions forecast metadata, but says nothing about what happens when preferNearest is false and no zone matches, about error conditions, or about auth/rate limits.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste; the core purpose and the fallback caveat are both front-loaded.

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 5-parameter spatial/temporal query with no output schema, the description covers what is returned only generically ('danger rating and forecast metadata') and omits failure behavior when no zone is found. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 all five parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the lat/lon and YYYY-MM-DD semantics and the fallback role of preferNearest, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get the avalanche danger rating and forecast metadata'), names the zone-containment logic, and scopes it to 'a specific historic day'. The word 'historic' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling avalanche_danger_rating_by_point.

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 'historic day' qualifier gives clear context for when this tool applies versus the current-condition sibling, and the fallback note signals behavior when the point misses all polygons. It stops short of explicitly naming the non-historic alternative or stating when-not to use this tool.

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