Get GOES X-ray flux and current flare class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the flare class is NOAA's own computation, not re-derived, and explains the physical context (SID, HF absorption). It doesn't mention latency or error handling, but for a simple 0-parameter read tool, the behavioral context is rich.

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 front-loaded with the primary function and every sentence adds value: output specification, physical significance, and use-case triggers. No filler or repetition; three dense but purposeful sentences.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), and the description covers the key aspects: data channels, units, flare classification scale, event details, and use cases. It might omit exact field names or null handling, but for typical use it is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds meaning to the output data (channels, units, flare scale), which indirectly helps infer what the tool provides. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource (GOES X-ray flux in both channels, flare classification, and recent flare event details). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_kindex_forecast or get_solar_wind by specifying X-ray flux and flare class.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: 'Use this when asked 'any solar flares', 'what class is the current flare', or 'is there an X-ray event happening''. It also differentiates from geomagnetic-storm degradation, clarifying when not to use it.

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