birding_weather

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

The description reveals that data is from NWS and interpreted, and that output is combined into migration_forecast. With no annotations, this is adequate but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. It adds some behavioral context beyond the name.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of sibling tools and no output schema, the description partially explains output (combined into migration_forecast) but lacks specifics on return format or how the output relates to other tools. It is adequate for simple use but not fully complete.

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 descriptions for lat, lng, and date (including defaults). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 gets NWS weather data interpreted for birding, listing specific components like overnight wind direction/speed, morning forecast, and plain-English migration interpretation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing interpretation and combination into migration_forecast output.

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 birding weather interpretation but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'migration_forecast' or 'birding_window'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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