get_observatory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states data is U.S. public domain and preliminary, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or the fact that it is a read-only operation.

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 very concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose and provide essential details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the data type, available components, temporal scope, and data provenance. It also references a sibling tool (list_observatories) for station codes.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the station parameter as an IAGA code from list_observatories, hours as the time window, elements as field components with defaults, and sampling_period with usage recommendations. It adds meaning beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 the tool returns 'Ground magnetometer time series for one USGS observatory (nT).' It specifies the exact resource (magnetometer data per observatory) and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other space weather data like solar wind or Kp 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 provides usage guidance: 'Use 60s sampling for trends, 1s for detail (heavier)' and notes that station codes come from list_observatories. It also mentions that near-real-time values are preliminary. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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