Smarter Weather Developer Onboarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with safety. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that no authentication is required and by detailing the result shape: up to 5 entries with title, URL, and an actionable summary. This is useful given there is no output schema.

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 exactly two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the resource and scope, the second covers return format and authentication. Every sentence carries distinct information that an agent needs.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it states the full topic scope, the return result count and fields, and the authentication requirement. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing for correct 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% and the single 'query' parameter is already described with an example ('authenticate rest api') and length constraints. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond indicating that the query targets the documentation index, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names the exact resource ('Smarter Weather developer documentation index'), with an enumerated list of topics including quickstart, REST API, MCP server, errors, rate limits, SDKs, pricing, and API keys. This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_plans and sign_up, which target billing and registration rather than documentation lookup.

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 implicitly signals when to use the tool by enumerating doc categories and noting that no authentication is required, which is a real usage condition. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to invoke it for documentation lookups rather than for plans or sign-up.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behaviorally relevant context beyond annotations: returns current data, requires no authentication, and clarifies that one metered allowance spans REST and MCP usage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and then expanding on specifics. No filler, no repetition of annotations, and every sentence adds distinct useful information.

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 read-only tool, the description sufficiently explains what output to expect (tiers, monthly price, included allowance, overage rates) and relevant usage constraints (no auth, metered allowance spanning REST and MCP). No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential return values and behavior.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The no-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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 returns current developer-platform plans and pricing, listing the specific tiers and cost details. The resource 'plans and pricing' is distinct from sibling tools get_documentation and sign_up, making it easy for an agent to differentiate without needing to open those definitions.

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 useful context—current plans, no auth required—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_documentation or sign_up. No exclusions or alternative routing is given; the usage is implied by the specific subject matter rather than explicitly directed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: no authentication required, Clerk-based signup with no credit card, MCP referral attribution, and the required follow-up OAuth flow. This goes well beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences. It states the primary output first, then gives user-facing instructions and the follow-up workflow. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundant filler.

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 utility tool, the description covers the purpose, how to present the result, authentication status, and next steps in the overall flow. The presence of an output schema means the return format is covered elsewhere, so nothing material is missing.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is appropriately high.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the Smarter Weather developer sign-up URL'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings get_documentation and get_plans by focusing on the sign-up URL and referral attribution.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: present the URL for account creation in a browser, then proceed with create_api_key and configure_mcp. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the workflow is concrete enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds context: it does not mint from the hosted server, writes SMARTERWEATHER_API_KEY to .env, and never prints the bearer. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing side effects (writing to .env) and security behavior (not printing the bearer). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key caveat ('Does not mint from the hosted server'), followed by actionable alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though the phrasing is slightly dense and could be clearer about what the tool itself does.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety hints, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's limitations, side effects, and alternatives. A minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state what happens if the user calls this tool directly (e.g., error message or no-op), but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 purpose: starting a Smarter Weather trial API key. It distinguishes itself from the hosted server and directs users to alternative methods. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'this tool starts a trial' in a direct verb+resource form, instead focusing on what it does not do and how to do it elsewhere.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer the npx command or stdio bridge, and restart on @latest if already running. It names alternatives and conditions clearly, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus the alternatives.

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