MCP Server Demo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get weather info' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., temperature, conditions, units), whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), error handling, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'weather info' includes in the response, potential errors, or usage constraints. For a tool with such minimal structured data, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'city' well-documented in the schema as a required string for city names. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameter's purpose ('for a given city'), but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond what's in 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 action ('Get weather info') and the target resource ('for a given city'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_current_date', which is a different domain, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation but could be more specific about what 'weather info' includes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any contextual prerequisites. It simply states what it does without indicating if it's for current conditions only, if there are limitations (e.g., city availability), or how it relates to other potential weather tools.

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