Roadside weather

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: data sources (CDOT, WSDOT, UDOT), coverage boundaries, and return value for uncovered areas. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no wasted words: the first states the core function and data types, the second differentiates from a sibling, and the third notes the fallback. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple interface (one required param, output schema exists), the description covers the essential context: data types, sources, coverage area, and fallback. It could mention data freshness, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the slug parameter. The description reinforces that the slug identifies a resort but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns measured roadside weather data (RWIS) including surface/air temperature, visibility, wind, and precipitation, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the modeled get_operating_risk sibling. It specifies the geographic scope (Colorado, Washington, Utah) and the fallback behavior.

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 explicitly differentiates from get_operating_risk by noting sensor vs. modeled data, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use alternatives like get_road_access or get_road_cameras, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions beyond coverage.

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