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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds useful behavioral detail: an empty result means no active tropical activity, and include_geometry=true returns large GeoJSON geometries. This warns the agent about payload size and result interpretation without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Every sentence in the description adds value: scope, feature structure, parameter behavior, empty-result semantics, and a usage example. It is front-loaded with the resource identity and avoids any unnecessary elaboration.

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?

With one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema available, the description covers the essential call semantics completely: what data is returned, what each feature contains, how the geometry flag changes the response, and how to interpret a nempty result. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this 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?

The input schema already documents include_geometry with a default and description, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by warning that geometry is large and by providing concrete example invocations ({} vs. {include_geometry: true}), which helps the agent choose the safe default.

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 identifies a specific resource—active NHC tropical systems—and enumerates the exact content types returned (forecast cones, track lines, points, watches/warnings, outlook areas) and basins covered. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling weather tools even without naming one explicitly.

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 when to use the tool by defining its scope (active NHC tropical activity) and explains the empty-result semantics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as get_storm_cells or get_outlooks for non-tropical severe weather.

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