nws_glossary

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds the 'full' scope and the term→definition structure, which is useful but not extensive. It doesn't mention any limitations like size or pagination, but for a simple retrieval this is adequate given the strong annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the use case is stated second. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it. The term→definition hint gives an agent a sense of the return structure. Nothing essential is missing for a correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. The description's mention of 'full' and the output format is sufficient context for a parameterless call, matching the baseline for 0 params.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('the full NWS weather glossary') with a specific output format ('term → definition'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on forecasts, alerts, or observations, so an agent can immediately recognize its purpose.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: 'Useful for explaining technical terms in forecasts.' This tells an agent when to reach for this tool, and there are no direct alternatives among siblings for a glossary. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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