Active tropical cyclones in the PAR

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses key behavioral details: returns empty list if none active, and returns a structured error object if the upstream PAGASA page is unreachable, preventing false negatives. This adds valuable context not conveyable by annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by two concise behavioral clarifications. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or extra words.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: what it returns, the empty case, and the failure mode. It fully supports agent decision-making without needing additional context.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details and instead explains output semantics, which is appropriate given no inputs to document.

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 'Get active tropical cyclones in/near the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR)'—a specific verb, resource, and geographic scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_historical_typhoons_ph and get_weather_forecast.

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 context of use is clear: for active tropical cyclones in the PAR. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the description's specificity implies when to use it (e.g., current status, not historical data). Lacks explicit 'use instead of X' guidance.

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