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

Well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call), the payment rails (x402 on Base, Solana, Arc), and the crucial billing rule that failed calls are not charged. It also discloses methodological assumptions (Rayleigh distribution, air density 1.225 kg/m³) and accuracy limits, which materially affect how the result should be trusted.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the resource and output list before provenance, caveats, and price. Every clause carries information, though the long parenthetical stacks (provenance, method assumptions, pricing) could be split for faster scanning.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation; what remains — data source, grid resolution, extrapolation method, accuracy caveat, and cost — is all covered. An agent can decide whether to call this and predict the charge without consulting anything else.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each of lat, lon and hubHeight already documented including ranges and the default. The description adds only indirect context — that hubHeight drives the shear-exponent extrapolation and the resulting 50 m reference — which is marginal beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb-and-resource statement: wind resource at a coordinate, with the exact returned quantities (10 m and 50 m mean speeds, direction, shear exponent, hub-height extrapolation, power density). It also names the data source (NASA POWER / MERRA-2, ~0.5° grid), which distinguishes it from the sibling energy_global_solar_atlas_pv and from the GWA layers it explicitly rules out.

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 phrase 'coarse screening data' plus the note that Global Wind Atlas 250 m layers have no public point API tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and why the obvious alternative is unavailable. It stops short of stating exclusions directly (e.g., 'not for bankable energy yield assessment' or 'use the solar atlas for PV'), leaving some inference to the agent.

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