get_spc_outlook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: categorical vs probabilistic output, day parameter range, units accepted but no effect. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only tool, the behavioral traits are sufficiently 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?

Description is concise (~100 words) and well-structured: purpose first, then usage triggers, then parameter details. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded key information.

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 5 parameters, no required, no enums, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary usage aspects and output types. It does not detail error cases or API limits, but the output schema likely documents return values, making the description sufficient for agent invocation.

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 description must compensate fully. It explains all five parameters: latitude/longitude optional (default primary location), outlook_type values with output details, day meaning, units accepted but irrelevant. This adds critical 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 tool's purpose: 'Check SPC severe weather outlook for a US location.' It provides specific verb+resource ('Check SPC severe weather outlook') and differentiates from siblings like get_national_outlook by focusing on SPC outlook with examples like 'Severe weather risk?' and 'Storm outlook?'.

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 gives clear usage cues with example questions ('Severe weather risk?', 'Storm outlook?') and explains when to use different outlook types. It mentions omitting lat/lon for primary location but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings, though the context of sibling tools is available.

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