Aurora Forecast (NOAA SWPC OVATION)

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by specifying the output includes times and top probability bands, plus the data source. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core function and output format, the second adds use case and attribution. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional boolean, output schema present, annotations complete), the description covers all necessary context: data source, aggregation method, output elements, and use cases. No gaps.

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 sole parameter 'refresh' is a boolean with a description explaining it is a no-op flag for cache busting (bypasses 5-minute cache). Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds functional context beyond the schema.

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 returns the latest OVATION aurora visibility forecast, aggregated into latitude bands, including observation/forecast times and top hemisphere bands. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling space.swpc tools which cover solar indices and wind, not aurora.

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 notes the tool is useful for aurora-tourism agents and high-latitude visibility checks, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling set makes the purpose distinct.

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