get_national_outlook

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

With no annotations, the description explains that the tool returns risk areas with human-readable region descriptions and that no lat/lon is needed. It does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, but the nature is implied. The description is transparent about the output but could be slightly more explicit about non-destructiveness.

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 very concise, using line breaks and bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value without repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage examples.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, parameter details, and output characteristics ('returns all active risk areas with human-readable region descriptions'). However, it does not specify how many risk areas to expect or update frequency. With an existing output schema (not shown), this is acceptable, but the description alone is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'day: 1=today, 2=tomorrow, 3=day after' and 'units: accepted for API consistency but does not affect outlook output'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'CONUS-wide SPC severe weather risk areas'. It includes usage examples ('Any severe weather in the US?', 'National storm outlook?') and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_spc_outlook by specifying national coverage.

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 when' examples are provided, making it clear when to invoke this tool. The description also clarifies that the 'units' parameter is accepted for API consistency but does not affect the output, preventing misuse.

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