env_snow_current

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: data is modeled from SLF model, values are in cm, and zero outside snow season is not an error. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with sections using HTML-like tags, bullet arguments, and a clear return description. It is concise yet complete, with no unnecessary words.

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 simple data retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral notes, parameter list, and return format. Combined with annotations and an output schema, it provides sufficient context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Despite schema_description_coverage being 0% (as per context), the description lists parameters (canton, station, limit, response_format) with brief explanations. However, it mostly repeats what is in the schema. It adds units clarification but no additional constraints or examples beyond the schema.

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 retrieves current snow height and new snow 24h from SLF-IMIS stations, with specific units and model source. It also notes that zero values are normal outside snow season. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like env_snow_stations, though the purpose is clear enough.

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 provides explicit use cases (current snow situation for planning), an alternative tool for precipitation (meteoswiss-mcp), and mentions the data license. This guides the agent on when and when not to use this tool, and where to go for related data.

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