steward_weather

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses cost ($0.01 USDC on Base per call), the 402 quote flow, what the server verifies (scheme, network, payee), spend-cap enforcement, and that the payer key stays local. It omits failure/retry behavior and forecast units, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and the sibling disambiguation are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the payment mechanics. The payment paragraph is longer than typical but is load-bearing given zero annotation coverage; it is dense rather than redundant.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it: purpose, inputs, routing, and the full payment/authorization path. The remaining gap is what the forecast actually returns (units, fields) and error/edge behavior, which would matter more since no output schema exists.

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 both lat and lon already carry ranges and worked examples from the schema. The description only adds 'any latitude/longitude', which conveys no syntax or format information beyond the structured fields — the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 (current conditions plus 7-day forecast) and the exact input domain (any latitude/longitude). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (steward_iss_pass) and even notes they share coordinates, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Provides use cases (trip planning, event scheduling, location-aware task prep) and an explicit alternative rule: 'Use this for weather; use steward_iss_pass for satellite flyovers at the same coordinates.' The when-to-use and the competing-tool condition are both stated outright.

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