x402_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the cost ($0.01 USDC/call), which is a key behavioral trait (transactional). However, it doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. For a simple query tool, the cost disclosure adds value but is incomplete given the absence of annotations.

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 a single sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core functionality, then the cost. It contains no filler. However, it could be structured slightly better by explicitly mentioning the input (city) or output format, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential information: what it returns (current conditions and forecast) and the cost. It doesn't elaborate on response format or error handling, but for a weather query, this is likely sufficient. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's mention of the returned data.

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% because the 'city' parameter has a description ('City name'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints for the parameter. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't compensate further.

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 provides 'Current conditions + today's forecast' – a specific resource and outcome. The verb is implicit but the resource (weather) and the scope (current + forecast) are unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by domain, as no other weather-related tool exists among the listed siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state conditions like 'Use for weather queries' or exclude scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, without explicit context or alternatives.

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