get_forecast_discussion

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the content is 'latest' and 'raw', providing context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential error responses or rate limits.

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?

A single, clear sentence of 12 words. Every word is necessary: verb, resource, attributes (latest, raw), and parameter constraint (three-letter WFO). No redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter meaning adequately. It assumes domain knowledge of NWS terminology (WFO) but is sufficient for an AI agent. Could mention that invalid office codes result in errors.

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?

The schema has no description for the 'office' parameter (0% coverage). The description specifies it must be a 'three-letter WFO', adding crucial formatting and value constraints that the schema lacks. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'raw NWS Area Forecast Discussion', specifying it's for a three-letter WFO. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_point_forecast or get_hourly_forecast, which provide different types of forecast data.

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 when needing the raw discussion text for a specific WFO, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., get_point_forecast for numerical forecasts). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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