Open Meteo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any constraints beyond what's implied by the parameters. The description merely restates the tool's purpose without adding behavioral 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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a tool with well-documented parameters in the schema.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'climate change scenarios' means, what data is returned, format of results, or any behavioral aspects. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema for parameter details but has no guidance on output or usage context.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'climate change scenarios' entail or how models affect results). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation solely through 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 with specific verbs ('get') and resources ('climate change scenarios and long-term climate data'), distinguishing it from weather-focused siblings like get_current_weather or get_historical_weather. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_air_quality might also provide climate-related data).

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. It doesn't mention when climate data is preferable to weather data, nor does it reference any sibling tools for comparison. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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