get_storm_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that reports are 'local' (spotter/official) and 'normalized', with temporal (past N hours) and spatial (radius_km) scope. However, it does not mention data limitations (e.g., only CONUS, potential latency, or that reports may be sparse). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key constraints. Every word is informative; no fluff or 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 presence of an output schema, the description need not fully detail return values, but it already lists key output fields. However, it omits details on result ordering, maximum results, or handling of empty responses. For a tool returning many reports, this could hamper effective 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It mentions 'within radius_km' and 'over the past N hours', which map to radius_km and hours parameters, but does not clarify lat/lon format, units (expected decimal degrees), valid ranges, or the default values. The description adds some value but is insufficient for comprehensive parameter understanding.

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 retrieves 'Local Storm Reports' (spotter/official reports) near a CONUS point, with specific types (tornado, hail, wind, flood). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_active_warnings and get_radar_snapshot by focusing on historical reports rather than warnings or radar data.

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 storm reports in an area, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, such as when to prefer get_mrms_severe or get_active_warnings. No when-not-to-use 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.