DYOE Weather ($0.01)

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

Annotations already cover safe-read (readOnlyHint) and open-world scope, and the description adds non-trivial behavioral context the annotations don't: the $0.01 USDC cost on Base paid via x402. Cost/payment mechanics are exactly the kind of thing an agent needs before calling. It does not, however, mention rate limits, latency, or failure/error behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence with the capability statement front-loaded, followed by cost. The 'Input: ?city=Atlanta' fragment duplicates schema information and is mild waste, but overall it is tight and readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state what comes back (current conditions + 3-day forecast) and covers payment mechanics. Only minor gaps remain around response shape specifics and error behavior, which are acceptable for a one-parameter read tool.

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% and the single 'city' parameter is already documented in the schema, so the schema carries the burden. The description's 'Input: ?city=Atlanta' restates the same example rather than adding meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: current conditions plus a 3-day forecast for any city. The audience note ('for travel & planning agents') further narrows intent. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like dyoe_fx or dyoe_destination, though it doesn't name a sibling directly.

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 phrase 'for travel & planning agents' implies the usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives among the 21 sibling tools. Guidance is present but only inferred.

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