get_kp_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that each data point is tagged as observed/estimated/predicted, indicating the nature of the data. It also states the source (NOAA) and resolution. This adds value beyond a simple schema, though update frequency or limitations are not mentioned.

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: first states the core function, second adds detail and use case. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential: source, resolution, data tagging, and use case. Missing details like update cadence or data freshness, but overall sufficient for an AI agent to understand and select the tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, but the schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides NOAA's 3-day planetary Kp forecast at 3-hour resolution, which is a specific verb (fetch) and resource (Kp forecast). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning '3-day' and '3-hour resolution', which contrasts with longer-term outlooks or current conditions.

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 notes the tool is useful for aurora-watch planning and anticipating geomagnetic disturbance, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., get_27day_outlook for longer horizon).

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