Get ocean forecast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the three data types but omits units (e.g., meters, degrees Celsius), update frequency, data resolution, or boundary behavior for out-of-range coordinates. It also does not describe the response format, which is especially important since there is no output schema.

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 short and to the point, using two sentences with no filler. It conveys the tool's purpose and scope efficiently, though it could sacrifice brevity for a bit more behavioral detail.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description includes the core provided data and geographic scope. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance, units, and response details, making it only marginally sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in diverse scenarios.

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 input schema documents all three parameters with clear descriptions (latitude, longitude, hours) and constraints (ranges, default), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (ocean forecast) and the specific data provided (wave height, wave direction, sea temperature). It also limits geographic scope to the Norwegian coast, which differentiates it from a general forecast tool, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 a geographic coverage hint ('Covers the Norwegian coast and nearby seas') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_forecast or get_nowcast, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer whether this is marine-focused.

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