nws_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the search is case-sensitive, how results are ranked, whether it searches across all stations or a subset, or what the return format looks like. 'Full-text search' is the only behavioral clue, which is insufficient.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words; the stationId hint is secondary but useful. Exactly the right size for the amount of information provided.

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?

This is a search tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too sparse to guide correct invocation: it doesn't explain result behavior, parameter formats, default limits, or how to interpret results. It leaves most operational details to inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that stationId can narrow the search, but adds no semantics for 'query' (e.g., what fields are searched, whether it supports wildcards) or 'limit' (e.g., default limit, pagination). Three parameters remain largely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specific verb and resource: 'full-text search across NWS stations.' This distinguishes it from siblings like nws_list_stations (enumeration) and nws_search_blocks. However, it doesn't name an alternative or clarify the relationship to nws_list_stations, 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 phrase 'Narrow with stationId when known' implies a usage condition for that parameter, which is helpful. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs nws_list_stations or other search-like siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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