get_threat_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs multiple products concurrently, that the first call may take ~10 seconds due to RAP profile download, and describes the output structure. This provides good transparency about behavior and performance.

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 concise, well-structured paragraph of four sentences. The first sentence captures the primary purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. No fluff.

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 (composite of multiple data sources) and minimal schema, the description provides a good overview of the output. It mentions all key output components and notes the latency behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return value explanations. Minor gaps in error or boundary handling, but still adequate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds context that lat/lon are for a CONUS point and are used as the location for the brief. This provides basic meaning beyond the schema but lacks details like coordinate bounds or format expectations.

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's purpose: it is a 'Composite severe-weather threat brief for a CONUS point' that runs multiple data sources concurrently and synthesizes them. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_active_warnings by being a composite rather than a single source.

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 the tool should be used for a comprehensive threat overview, but it does not explicitly contrast it with individual sibling tools or state when to use one over the other. Some guidance on use cases or when not to use it would improve clarity.

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