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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'query' implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm read-only behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. It does add useful output context (golden light period, 0-100 score, weather factors), which partially compensates.

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 dense sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second documents the parameters. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still gives a helpful summary of them. Parameters are fully documented, so the main remaining gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance against siblings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies lat/lng as WGS-84 decimal degrees (a coordinate-system detail absent from the schema) and date as YYYY-MM-DD with today as the default. All three parameters gain meaning beyond their bare titles.

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 states a clear verb+resource: querying snow mountains visible near given coordinates, plus a golden-hour forecast with a score and weather factors. An agent can tell what the tool returns, though it does not differentiate itself from the siblings forecast_peak or search_peak.

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?

Usage is only implied by the coordinates-based query framing. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus forecast_peak or search_peak, and 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.