Retrieve real-time weather, 7-day forecasts, and 30-year climate baselines for Chinese agricultural regions to support farming decisions and risk management.
获取中国农业产区实时气象+7天预报+NASA POWER 30年气候基准（免费双源，覆盖泸州/合江/龙马潭等11个预设产区，支持任意中文地名回落川南坐标）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crop | No | 作物，如：晚熟荔枝/真龙柚/蔬菜；缺省按产区推测 | |
| region | No | 产区名，如：泸州/合江/龙马潭/先市/黑龙江；默认泸州 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses data provenance (free dual-source, NASA POWER 30-year baseline, 7-day forecast) and fallback behavior for arbitrary Chinese place names, but says nothing about read-only nature, rate limits, auth, or failure modes.
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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the data types the tool returns, with detail tucked into one trailing parenthetical. Efficient, though the parenthetical is information-packed.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should describe more about the returned structure (how real-time, forecast, and baseline are organized). It covers sources and coverage but leaves the response shape unspecified.
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 the schema already documents both parameters including defaults. The description adds only marginal meaning (the arbitrary-place-name fallback to southern Sichuan coordinates), which is correct at the 3 baseline.
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 (获取) and a rich, well-scoped resource set: real-time weather + 7-day forecast + NASA POWER 30-year climate baseline for agricultural regions. The resource type (weather data) inherently differs from the sibling suzi_weather_alerts, but the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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 explains what data it returns and its coverage, but gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions suzi_weather_alerts or any condition for choosing between them. The agent must infer usage from the resource itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.