solar_wind

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the source (DSCOVR at L1), data fields, and a scientific context. However, it omits details on update frequency, latency, or whether data is cached. As a read-only data fetch, the behavior is adequately outlined.

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 concise: a summary line, one key explanatory note, and a bulleted return list. No superfluous words; essential information is front-loaded.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides the key data fields, source, and a scientific note. It is largely complete but could mention data update frequency or real-time latency for full completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output fields and their scientific relevance, which is the primary context needed beyond the empty schema.

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 retrieves 'real-time DSCOVR L1 solar wind data' and lists specific fields (Bz, Bt, wind speed, density, storm assessment). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like solar_forecast or solar_xray.

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 use for monitoring geomagnetic storms via the Bz component note, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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