Historical typhoon tracks through the PAR

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the data source (NOAA IBTrACS), the filtering and aggregation logic (Western Pacific basin + coordinates in PAR, aggregated per storm), and the return values (peak intensity, minimum pressure, track period). These details provide a strong understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 a compact, well-structured paragraph with three sentences that cover the summary, source, and filtering/aggregation. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, source, filtering, aggregation, and return fields. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on overall data scope and output rather than explaining year or limit behavior.

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 tool provides historical tropical cyclone tracks through the Philippine AOR, sourced from NOAA IBTrACS, and returns specific data fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_active_typhoons by emphasizing 'historical' rather than current storms.

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 establishes a clear context for when to use the tool—for historical typhoon track data—through the word 'historical' and the geographic scope. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary guidance, such as 'use get_active_typhoons for current typhoons.'

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