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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only mentions the Open-Meteo dependency, but does not disclose that several parameters are discarded or that the tool may ignore inputs other than 'city'. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with 9 optional parameters.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core function and source with no filler. Every word is relevant.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters with no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, while the description only explains the weather intent. This leaves the agent uncertain about which parameter is essential for a successful call, what response to expect, and why the schema contains unrelated fields. The description is therefore incomplete for proper invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose and the 'discarded after the shape check' semantics. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the current temperature for a city, with the external source Open-Meteo. This distinguishes it from sibling hints like geo-hint or lib-docs-hint, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return'.

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 implies a use case: call this tool when you need the current temperature for a city. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools like web-fetch or geo-hint, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferable.

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