aviation-weather

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses real-time data from NOAA, no API key needed, and specifies output includes current conditions and 24-30 hour forecast. Lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but sufficient for a simple tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with most important info (what it returns), then input format and source. No wasted words.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects. It could be more complete by hinting at the output structure (e.g., includes both METAR and TAF), but current version is adequate.

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 a clear description of the airport parameter. The description adds context by specifying IATA/ICAO formats and providing examples, adding value beyond 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 explicitly states the tool returns aviation weather (METAR + TAF) for any airport, listing specific data points (temp, wind, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'weather' by specifying aviation-specific data and source.

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?

It clearly states accepted input formats (IATA/ICAO). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like the general 'weather' tool, the context of aviation weather is sufficient. Could be improved by mentioning 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.