raw_map_layer_by_avalanche_center

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only discloses the return shape (raw GeoJSON FeatureCollection) and the optional historic parameter. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, whether historic days beyond a retention window are unavailable, and whether the map layer is a live or archived snapshot.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional parameter called out second. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, so naming the GeoJSON FeatureCollection return is valuable and largely satisfies return-value expectations for a two-parameter read. Slight gaps remain around historic-data availability and error behavior for invalid center IDs.

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%, with both centerId (example UAC) and day (YYYY-MM-DD) documented in the schema. The description repeats only the day format and the center-ID scoping, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides; 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 (Return) and resource (raw Avalanche.org map-layer GeoJSON FeatureCollection) scoped to a specific avalanche center ID. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling raw_map_layer by requiring a center ID, but never names that sibling or states the difference 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: the center-ID scoping and the optional historic day suggest when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., raw_map_layer for an unfiltered layer). An agent must infer the routing decision.

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