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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the data source and result, with no disclosure of caching, failure behavior, rate limits, data freshness, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 with no filler. Its brevity is a strength, though it sacrifices useful contextual detail that would earn a 5.

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 a large, seemingly unrelated input schema and no output schema or annotations. The description is too minimal to account for why many parameters exist, how the city parameter should be formatted, or what the agent should expect in response.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including that most are discarded. The description adds little beyond this, but it does confirm that 'city' is the meaningful parameter for a weather hint. With high schema coverage, baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: returning current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It differentiates this tool from geo-hint and lib-docs-hint, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what inputs are required, or what qualifies as a valid city. The description implies a simple lookup but leaves all selection and invocation decisions to the agent.

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