Active Solar Regions (NOAA SWPC)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: sorting order (most recently observed first), specific fields included, and data source (NOAA SWPC). 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?

Two efficient sentences, no wasted words. First sentence lists content, second states sorting and source. Front-loaded with key information.

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 rich annotations and presence of output schema, description is sufficiently complete. It covers data source, content, sorting, and relative recency. Does not explicitly mention update frequency or caching behavior, but not critical for a list 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?

Only one parameter (limit) with 100% schema coverage. The schema already describes its purpose and constraints. The description mentions sorting but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. 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?

Description clearly states it provides 'currently active sunspot regions' with specific attributes (NOAA AR number, location, area, spot class, magnetic class, flare probabilities). Sorted by most recently observed first. Source is explicitly stated. This distinguishes it from other space tools like space.swpc.aurora or nasa.space_weather.flares.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives such as space.swpc.aurora, space.swpc.k_index, or nasa.space_weather.flares. The description implies usage for active solar regions data but does not exclude other contexts or provide comparative advantages.

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