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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the searchable fields and 50-row limit. However, it omits return shape, pagination behavior, and permission/auth context beyond what the schema implies.

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 definition is tightly front-loaded with the core action, search fields, and result cap in one sentence. The unexplained 'PRO.' prefix is minor and does not add bulk.

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 simple two-parameter search tool this is mostly callable, but with no output schema it should say more about what a WBGT row contains and what the response looks like. The absence of annotations also leaves some behavioral details unstated.

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 keyword parameter has no schema description, but the tool description clarifies that it searches prefecture or station name substrings. The access_token parameter is already documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is small.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find WBGT rows by prefecture or station name substring, with a 50-row cap. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings hottest and wbgt_sample.

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 search-by-substring purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance versus hottest or wbgt_sample. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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