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

The description discloses that it returns real data, not sandbox, and mentions the cost per call. It also notes the data source (20 years of Open-Meteo historical data). The readOnlyHint annotation is present, and the description aligns with it. It doesn't describe the exact output structure, but the description provides enough context about what the tool returns.

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 concise and front-loaded with the most important information (cost, entry point). It uses a clear structure: cost, purpose, output, data source, and usage instruction. Every sentence adds value, and it's not overly verbose.

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 complexity (returns multiple data points), the description is fairly complete. It mentions the risk score, perils, historical data, and risk level. It also notes the data source and the fact that it's real data. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description's detail. It could mention the exact output format, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description doesn't need to add much. However, the description adds context that business_type determines which perils are most relevant, which is not in the schema. This adds value beyond the schema.

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: it assesses weather risk for a business location and type, returning a risk score, perils, historical data, and risk level. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the entry point for every agent flow and explicitly says to call it first before requesting a quote.

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 usage guidance: 'Entry point for every agent flow' and 'Always call this first before requesting a quote.' It also mentions the cost per call, which is important for the agent to decide when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of being the first step in a flow is clear.

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