wx_sigmets

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states what the tool does and mentions a filter; it does not describe the output format, potential side effects, or any limitations (e.g., meaning of 'active', data source, return structure). This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a brief usage tip. Every word contributes, making it highly concise.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It lacks details on what the returned data looks like, how 'active' is determined, or any limitations. Given the minimal complexity, it achieves a 3 but could benefit from additional context.

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 fully documents the 'region' parameter with enum and a description. The tool description adds the rationale for using the filter ('reduce noise'), which provides slight added value beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this scores a 3.

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 primary function with a specific verb ('Get') and specific resources (SIGMETs and AIRMETs). It is distinct from sibling weather tools that focus on METAR, TAF, PIREPs, etc., but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides a usage tip ('Filter by region to reduce noise') but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like wx_metar or wx_taf. The context is implied (if you need SIGMET/AIRMET data, use this), but there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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