noaa_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, return format), so it provides minimal value beyond what annotations already convey.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the purpose and the relationship to other tools succinctly, front-loading the key action and resource.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with all optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what it returns (location IDs) and its purpose. It lacks explicit guidance on result format or how to interpret returns, but this is minor for a search tool where the primary function is clear.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, including enum values for category. The tool description itself adds little beyond the schema, merely restating examples ('states, cities, countries') that map to the category enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('NOAA location IDs'), and the entity types (states, cities, countries). It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like noaa_stations and noaa_datasets by focusing on location IDs, and explicitly notes they are for use with other NOAA tools.

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 use with other NOAA tools') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It gives a clear context but lacks direct routing to specific use cases or comparative guidance against siblings like noaa_stations.

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