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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 48-hour horizon, the 6-hour score granularity, the exact inputs (wind gusts, convective potential, winter/sustained precipitation, cloud cover), and the pricing/transport (GET, $0.02 via x402). It stops short of stating rate limits or return structure beyond 'same shape as the generic endpoint'.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome and horizon, followed by derivation detail and a compact metadata bracket. There is mild redundancy ('next 48 hours' and MSP each stated twice), but every sentence contributes useful content.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers purpose, horizon, signal inputs, cost, and documentation URL. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only return-format and pricing-model details are left implicit.

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 takes no parameters (0 params, additionalProperties false), so there is nothing to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly conveys that the airport is fixed by the tool itself.

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 resource and scope: weather-driven delay risk for Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) over 48 hours. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the generic sibling by noting it is 'the generic delay-risk endpoint, bound to MSP,' so an agent can route among the many weather_aviation_* airport variants without opening schemas.

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 'bound to MSP' framing makes the selection condition clear against weather_aviation-delay-risk and the other airport codes. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., whether to prefer the city forecast weather_forecast_minneapolis for non-aviation needs).

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