get_radiation_station_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the basic operation ('Get list of weather station codes and names'), which is clear for a simple read-only list. However, it does not disclose whether all stations are returned, how the lang parameter affects behavior, or any limitations, though these are not critical for such a tool.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no filler or redundant 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the essential purpose and output. It does not explicitly link to the sibling get_weather_radiation_report, but that is more of a usage guideline nuance. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 a default but no enums or description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain lang or its possible values. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline for low coverage is reduced.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly states the resource: 'list of weather station codes and names for radiation reports in HK.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tide_station_codes by specifying 'for radiation reports,' leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 implies a use case (obtaining station codes for radiation reports), and the sibling tool get_weather_radiation_report hints at a prerequisite relationship. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool, when not to use it, or mention any alternatives, leaving usage guidance solely implied.

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