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

The description adds information the annotations do not carry: a cost of '1 credit' and a minimum 5-year input window. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description omits whether the call runs synchronously or returns a job handle requiring get_job_result, which is a meaningful behavioral gap for an open-world generator.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource, the key constraint, and the cost front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 7-parameter, 5-required generation tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unstated: the required api_key, what dc_edition controls, and whether the call is asynchronous. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but input-side and job-flow completeness are lacking.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it largely does not. Only start_year/end_year semantics are hinted at ('chosen period', 5-year minimum); lat, lon, api_key, dc_edition, and location_name are given no explanation anywhere.

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?

Names a specific resource (typical meteorological year) and action (generate from a chosen period), so an agent understands the output artifact. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like generate_epw or generate_future_climate, which also produce weather data for a location.

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 parenthetical '(at least 5 years; 10-20 is usual)' gives a real eligibility constraint on the input period, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over generate_epw, generate_forecast, or generate_future_climate, and no prerequisites (e.g., API key requirements) are mentioned.

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