climate_normals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup via 'Get' and lists returned measures, but does not state whether it is read-only, what permissions are required, rate limits, data source, or temporal coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and returned measures are immediately visible. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description identifies the returned variables but omits the temporal scope (e.g., normal period, future projection horizon) and units. This leaves a meaningful gap for climate data, though the tool is otherwise simple.

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%, with latitude and longitude already documented in the schema. The description adds only 'for a location,' which provides no semantic detail beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('climate normal projections') and enumerates the returned measures (mean max/min temp, precipitation). However, it does not differentiate from the many weather- and climate-adjacent siblings such as weather_forecast, historical_weather, or weather_current, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no routing help.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of weather_forecast, historical_weather, or other climate data tools. The phrase 'for a location' implies a basic usage context but provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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