get_frost_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it defines the risk bands, explains that any hours below threshold make risk at least low, and states that results include per-night minimum temperature and hours below threshold. It does not cover operational concerns such as data source or limits, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose before explaining risk semantics and output contents. Each sentence adds useful information, though the threshold explanation is somewhat detailed relative to the rest.

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 that an output schema exists and no annotations are provided, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It covers purpose, forecast range, threshold semantics, risk classification, and result contents, with only minor gaps around coordinate formatting.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines threshold_c as degrees Celsius, defines days as a forecast horizon, states the valid 1 to 16 range, and the example clarifies the positional order of lat, lon, days, and threshold_c.

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 action and resource: assess overnight frost risk for a forecast horizon. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives such as get_growing_degree_days or get_soil_conditions.

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 makes the intended context clear through the 1 to 16 day forecast horizon and frost-risk framing. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against sibling tools, so an agent must infer the selection conditions.

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