get_ogd_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the now-file-vs-recent-file fallback logic and the fact that timestamps are Swiss local time rather than UTC.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the station-code hint is placed last where it is most useful. The 'STAC CSV asset' phrasing is technical but earns its place by explaining the fallback behavior.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema and no enums, the description should say something about the returned data shape (rows, columns, units), which it does not beyond the timezone note. What it does cover — scope, source fallback, station code source — is accurate, so it is adequate but incomplete for a data-retrieval tool.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The only meaning the description adds beyond the schema is the Swiss-local-time convention, which helps interpret granularity values but does not explain any individual parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the latest MeteoSwiss OGD measurements for one station') and pins down the source (STAC CSV asset). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling get_ogd_history through the 'latest/recent' framing, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 gives a concrete routing hint for the required parameter ('Use list_ogd_stations for codes such as BER, SMA, LUG'), which is the main prerequisite for calling the tool. It does not state when to prefer get_ogd_history instead, so the boundary with the closest alternative is left to inference.

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