NOAA 7-Day Forecast (US)

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safe read behavior. The description adds transparency by naming the data source (api.weather.gov) and listing output fields. It does not contradict annotations. Could mention rate limits or data freshness but acceptable.

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, each adding distinct info: purpose, output summary, data source. No redundant phrases. Front-loaded with the core action. Excellent conciseness.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers input constraints (US contiguous), output fields, and source. Minor omissions: no mention of error conditions or data update frequency, but acceptable for a straightforward forecast 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?

Input schema already provides clear descriptions and bounds for latitude and longitude (100% coverage). The description adds context by noting US contiguous only and the output structure, which isn't in schema. This adds value beyond schema alone.

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 action (Get), the resource (7-day weather forecast), and the input (latitude/longitude). It specifies the output fields (temperature, precipitation, wind, forecast text) and source (NOAA NWS). The scope is well-defined: US contiguous only. This distinguishes it from siblings like hourly or observation tools.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating US contiguous only and the input format. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus other NOAA weather tools, but the title and description make it clear for a 7-day forecast. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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