get_historical_typhoons_ph

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses the data source, filtering criteria (Western Pacific basin + Philippine AOR), aggregation method, and return fields. However, it does not mention data update frequency or any access limitations.

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?

The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding source and details. No extraneous 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?

The description covers essential aspects: purpose, source, scope, and return fields. It is sufficient for a tool with two optional parameters and an output schema. Lacks minor details like the exact meaning of 'aggregated per storm' but is overall complete.

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 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It describes the return structure but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves.

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 it returns historical tropical cyclone tracks for the Philippine AOR, specifies the authoritative source (NOAA IBTrACS), and lists the return fields (peak intensity, min pressure, track period). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_active_typhoons by explicitly labeling as historical.

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 use for historical data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_active_typhoons or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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