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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the data source (World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal, CMIP6 model ensemble), the fact that no auth is required, and the aggregation options. It does not describe pagination or response size, but for a read-only projection query with an output schema present, this is adequate.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and resource, then packs the key parameter choices (variables, scenarios, windows, aggregation) into a compact list. Every sentence earns its place, and the data source/auth note is a useful final touch. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only query tool with a rich input schema (100% coverage), an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, the source, the scenario semantics, and the aggregation options. It does not mention response format details, but the output schema exists and the description need not explain return values. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on which sibling to choose for extremes or normals, but the tool's scope is clear enough.

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 all five parameters thoroughly, including enums, defaults, and units. The description adds a compact summary of the variable and scenario meanings but does not go beyond the schema in any significant way. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('CMIP6 future climate projection for a country'), then enumerates the exact variables, scenarios, and time windows. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings (world-bank-cckp.climate.extremes and world-bank-cckp.climate.normal) by focusing on future projections under SSP scenarios, while those siblings cover extremes and normals respectively.

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 clearly states what this tool returns (future projections under SSP scenarios) and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tools for extremes and normals. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X when you need future projections' or mention when not to use it, but the scenario/window framing makes the intended use case clear. A small gap: no explicit mention of the sibling alternatives by name.

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