query_climate_point

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It explains the snapping behavior and return format (CSV with time series), but does not mention rate limits, permissions, or explicit read-only nature. However, the described behavior is clear and sufficient.

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 main purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, parameter formats, return format, and behavioral nuances like snapping. No gaps remain.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter in an 'Args' block with formatting examples (e.g., lat: '48.8566 for Paris') and defaults for variables and aggregate. This adds significant meaning 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 that this tool queries climate data for a single point location and snaps to the nearest grid cell. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'query_climate' by noting it is a convenience wrapper for point queries rather than bounding box regions.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when you have a specific address or coordinate rather than a bounding box region. This provides clear guidance on when to use it versus the alternative query_climate.

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