get_wfo_for_point

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. Description adds specific resolution outputs (office, grid, zone) without contradicting annotations, but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or error handling.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and key outputs, no wasted words. Ideal conciseness for a simple lookup 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?

Given the simple purpose, rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does. However, it could improve by noting that coordinates are in decimal degrees or that the output is a JSON object.

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 0%; description does not explain parameters (lat, lon) beyond their names. No details on valid ranges, precision, or coordinate system, leaving agents to infer from parameter names 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?

Description uses specific verb 'resolve' and lists exact outputs (NWS office, grid, forecast zone, county, fire zone), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools that fetch data or alerts for given points.

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 this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_point_forecast). Context implies it is a coordinate-to-zone lookup, but lacks exclusions or alternative references.

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