Weather MCP Server

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 states what the tool does but provides no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (since none exist), but it fails to provide essential behavioral context that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose. The first sentence states the tool's core functionality, and the second provides parameter details with examples. There's no unnecessary information, and the structure is logical with purpose first followed by parameter clarification.

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 an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter with good semantic clarification in the description, the description is reasonably complete for a simple lookup tool. However, the lack of behavioral context (rate limits, auth requirements, error handling) and usage guidance relative to the sibling tool leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. While the schema only indicates 'state' is a required string parameter, the description specifies it must be a 'Two-letter US state code (e.g. CA, NY)' and provides concrete examples. This clarifies the expected format and valid values, compensating well for the schema's lack of documentation.

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: 'Get weather alerts for a US state.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('weather alerts'), and geographic scope ('US state'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_forecast' beyond the different resource type (alerts vs forecast).

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. While it mentions the sibling tool 'get_forecast' exists, there's no explanation of when to choose alerts over forecasts or vice versa. The only contextual information is the geographic limitation to US states, but this doesn't help with tool selection decisions.

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