get_mrms_severe

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: it samples within radius_km, returns max values over the last hour, and includes valid time and distance/bearing. However, it omits details like authentication needs or whether data is cached, though the core behavior is well-communicated.

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, consisting of two dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and then list specific products with details. Every word adds 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's complexity (multiple severe weather products), the description thoroughly lists what is returned (MESH, shear, VIL, reflectivity) with units and time windows. The presence of an output schema means return format details are covered externally, making this description complete for tool selection.

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 main description adds meaning by stating the tool retrieves data 'near a CONUS point' and uses radius_km for sampling. This clarifies that lat/lon define the center point. However, it does not specify constraints like valid ranges for lat/lon or radius_km, leaving some ambiguity.

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 MRMS radar-derived severe weather products near a CONUS point, listing specific products (MESH, shear, VIL, reflectivity). This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like get_active_warnings or get_radar_snapshot, which cover different data. The verb 'get' is implied, and the resource is well-defined.

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 usage for obtaining severe weather parameters at a point but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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