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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, data handling, or outcomes. It does not mention that parameters like 'ref' and 'json' are 'discarded after the shape check' or that city is 'discarded after the call'—these behaviors are only visible in the schema. No behavioral context is added beyond the one-line weather claim.

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 description is a single sentence, which is concise in word count, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It omits critical information about the tool's multi-purpose nature and the fact that most parameters are discarded. Brevity here sacrifices substance, making the description insufficiently structured for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a description that covers only one use case, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does with the other parameters, whether it returns different results based on input type, or what the output looks like. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool for anything beyond a simple weather query.

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% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions 'city', but the schema already describes that parameter. Since it neither contradicts nor supplements the schema, a 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Current temperature for a city') but ignores the tool's broader scope, as evidenced by 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query). It misleads an agent into thinking the tool only handles weather, when the schema suggests it accepts many other input types. This is more than vague—it is actively misleading about the tool's full purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 27 siblings (e.g., geo-hint, lib-docs-hint). It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent has no basis to decide if weather-hint is appropriate for a given request beyond the narrow weather mention.

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