get_noaa_scales

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It accurately discloses that the tool returns forecast data (today + 3 days) with scale levels and a headline summary. This is sufficient for a read-only information retrieval tool, though it could mention data source freshness if applicable.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences. The first sentence introduces the three scales, and the second details the return format and time range. Every word contributes value without redundancy.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (so return structure is documented), the description is complete enough. It specifies the time range (today + 3 days), data fields (scale level and label), and a headline. Minor gap: no mention of what each scale level represents numerically.

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, and the schema has 100% coverage trivially. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 identifies the tool as returning NOAA G, S, R scales, including a specific verb ('returns') and resource (the three scales). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the unique combination of geomagnetic, solar radiation, and radio blackout indices, while sibling tools like get_kp_forecast or get_radiation_storm focus on individual indices.

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 use for retrieving today's and next 3 days' scale forecasts, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_kp_forecast for Kp index). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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