Weather MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves document content as plain text, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with different document types mentioned in the schema. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that communicates the core purpose efficiently. There's no wasted language, though one could argue it's almost too minimal. It's front-loaded with the essential information in compact form.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the plain text output takes, how different document types are handled, authentication requirements, or error scenarios. For a tool that interacts with external documents, more operational context would be helpful.

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 fully documents the single parameter (docId). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 '获取飞书文档内容（纯文本）' clearly states the action ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resource ('飞书文档内容' - Feishu document content) with specificity about the format ('纯文本' - plain text). It distinguishes from potential siblings by focusing on document content retrieval rather than alerts or forecasts, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical document-related tools.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions. While the sibling tools (get-alerts, get-forecast) are clearly different, there's no explicit comparison or usage context provided.

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