NCEI Daily Climate Data

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context not in annotations, such as unit conventions ('tenths of °C' and 'tenths of mm') and the data source (GHCND dataset). No contradictions.

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: overview, scope, and units/source. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value and is appropriately sized for a data retrieval tool.

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 purpose, scope, units, and source. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. It could mention that station IDs come from ncei.climate.stations, but the schema already includes that hint. Overall complete for this type of 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description adds no significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though it provides overall context like the scope of records. Baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'historical daily weather observations', and specifies the types of data (max/min temperature, precipitation, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ncei.climate.stations by focusing on data retrieval rather than station metadata.

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 implies usage for historical daily data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. While the context of 260+ years and global stations gives some guidance, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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