d3p_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cost (5 sats) and endpoint, but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, required permissions, idempotency, or response format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence, followed by metadata (category, cost, endpoint) and parameter usage. Every sentence serves a clear function with no redundancy or filler. Ideal for quick parsing.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to fully explain return values, but it already lists the key data points. It covers the main functionality for a simple weather tool. Minor gaps (e.g., units, error behavior) are acceptable because of the output schema. Nearly complete.

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 input schema has a single 'params' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying that the JSON string must contain a 'location' field with a city name. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not state if location is required or provide format constraints, preventing a perfect score.

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 returns current weather conditions including specific data points (temperature, humidity, wind, feels-like). It uses a specific verb ('Current weather conditions') and identifies the resource (any location). Although no sibling weather tools exist, the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 when not to use it. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage without any comparative or restrictive information.

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