meteo_school_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context: it explains internal steps (geocoding, forecast, threshold check) and sources (SUVA/BAG). It doesn't contradict 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 structured with tags (use_case, important_notes, example) which aids readability. It is somewhat lengthy but every section serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity (multi-step aggregation with thresholds), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, thresholds, date behavior, and examples. It assumes output schema exists, which is acceptable.

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?

While the schema descriptions provide good coverage (contradicting the 0% metric), the tool description adds value through examples and threshold context, clarifying how parameters influence results.

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 it aggregates geocoding, 7-day forecast, and threshold check into a traffic light rating for outdoor school events. It explicitly distinguishes itself from meteo_forecast by saying it replaces the combination of forecast plus manual evaluation.

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 specifies when to use this tool (for school outdoor events) and mentions it replaces meteo_forecast plus manual evaluation. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use each sibling tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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