CheckWX Decoded METAR

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns decoded JSON with specific fields (wind, visibility, etc.). No contradictions. Good context beyond annotations.

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 concise (about 60 words), front-loaded with core purpose, and structures output field details efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and why it's useful. No gaps in context given the tool's scope.

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 well-described parameter (icao_codes). The description adds minimal new parameter info beyond 'one or more airports', not compensating for low coverage since coverage is already high. Baseline 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 'Get current METAR for one or more airports as fully decoded JSON' and lists the decoded fields. It explicitly distinguishes from parsing raw METAR text, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions saving agents from parsing raw METAR text, implying usage when decoded data is needed, but does not explicitly list alternatives (e.g., raw METAR tools like aviation.metar.current) or specify when not to use this tool. Moderate guidance.

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