nc_get_weather_stations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of stations, fields, whether the commune filter is applied, any pagination). It omits any side effects or limitations, which is inadequate for a data retrieval 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, concise sentence that directly conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no extraneous words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context beyond the purpose. It does not explain the expected output, how the commune filter works in practice, or how it differs from similar station tools. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more guidance to the agent for correct invocation, but it leaves these points unexplained.

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 already documents the single 'commune' parameter with a description ('Filter by commune'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter, such as format, default behavior, or accepted values. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 action ('Get'), the specific resource ('Météo France weather stations'), and the geographic scope ('in New Caledonia'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rain stations, reef stations, and others by naming the provider and type, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nc_get_rain_stations or nc_get_reef_stations. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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