mcp-server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'showing all relevant details' but doesn't specify what details, whether the tool performs a random selection, or any constraints. The external reference to 'findyourfivepm.com' is noted but not elaborated.

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 single sentence, which is compact. However, it leads with 'Use findyourfivepm.com', which is less critical than the core action. Despite that, it is efficient and front-loads the primary purpose reasonably well.

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 is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it leaves 'all relevant details' vague and doesn't mention what the return value contains, which is a gap for an agent needing to consume the output.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. The baseline for parameter semantics is 4 when there are no parameters, and the description adds no misleading information. It appropriately doesn't attempt to describe parameters that don't exist.

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 specifies the action ('find a city where it's currently 5PM') and the resource (city with current 5PM time). It is clear but does not explicitly mention the 'random' aspect from the tool name, and it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_city_info'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool 'get_city_info'. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' includes. There is no added context beyond the basic action.

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 single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough to understand the basic operation but lacks contextual richness. It does not explain what 'detailed information' means, how to interpret the response, or how this tool fits with the sibling. It is functional but not comprehensive.

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 description for 'geonameid' is clear and covers the parameter fully (schema_description_coverage=100%). The tool description mentions 'geonameid' but adds no meaningful semantics beyond that. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific city by its geonameid'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('detailed information about a specific city'), and includes the key parameter ('geonameid'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool find_random_fivepm_city, which focuses on random selection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling find_random_fivepm_city. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a valid geonameid) or exclusions. The context is minimal, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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