get_lightning_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (Get), but does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or parameter behavior. The behavior is minimally transparent but lacks richness.

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?

A single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with one optional parameter and an output schema, but the description omits the 'lang' parameter entirely and provides no usage context. This makes it incomplete for reliable invocation and parameter handling.

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 schema has one parameter, 'lang', with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema info. An agent has no way to know what 'lang' controls.

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 'Get cloud-to-ground and cloud-to-cloud lightning count data' with a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource (lightning count data). It distinguishes itself from sibling weather/tide tools that handle different data types.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. Usage is implied (need lightning counts), but there is no comparison with other tools or exclusions.

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