get_solar_regions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source (NOAA SWPC) and the data fields, but does not mention behavioral traits such as data freshness, update frequency, or what happens if no active regions are present. It is adequate but lacks some details an autonomous agent could benefit from.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the key purpose and data details. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately explains the data provided: location, area, spot/magnetic class, and flare/proton probabilities. It could be slightly improved by noting the update frequency or timestamp, but overall it is complete enough for use.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the parameter semantics dimension baselines at 4. The description does not need to add parameter info because there are none, and 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?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves today's active sunspot regions with flare probabilities from NOAA SWPC, and it lists specific per-region data like location, area, class, and probabilities. It also answers the specific questions 'how many sunspot regions / which is most likely to flare?' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_solar_flares or get_aurora_forecast.

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 explains what data the tool provides (active sunspot regions with flare probabilities) and what questions it answers, giving context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use get_solar_flares instead) or any prerequisites, so the guidance is implied but not explicit.

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