nws_point_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful context beyond that: what the resolved payload is intended for (feeding zone IDs into nws_zone_forecast) and the semantic outputs an agent should expect. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states function and outputs, the second gives use cases, the third routes to the common alternative. The key scoping claim is front-loaded ahead of the alternative routing. Zero filler.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is complete. With no output schema present, the description compensates by enumerating exactly what the response contains (gridpoint, office, time zone, zones, radar), so an agent knows what to expect when calling it.

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 description coverage is 100% — lat and lon each carry units, decimal-degree examples, and min/max bounds, all with ranges. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource ('Resolve a lat/lon') and enumerates the exact output set: gridpoint, office, time zone, forecast zone, county zone, and nearest radar station. It also names the sibling it is distinct from ('use nws_forecast directly'), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Useful for debugging or when you need the zone ID for nws_zone_forecast') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('Most callers can skip this and use nws_forecast directly'). It names the exact alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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