Flight Ticket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool defaults to querying today and tomorrow's weather when dates aren't provided, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid city names. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides important usage details about supported cities and default date behavior. There's no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded. The structure could be slightly improved with clearer separation of city support vs date behavior.

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 a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete coverage. It explains the core purpose and some behavioral defaults, but doesn't cover parameter formats, return values, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a weather query tool that likely returns structured data, the description should ideally mention what weather information is returned (temperature, conditions, etc.) since there's no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It explains that 'city_name' is required and lists example cities, and mentions that date parameters are optional with default behavior when omitted. However, it doesn't explain the format or meaning of 'start_date' and 'end_date' parameters, leaving them largely undocumented. The description adds some semantic value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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's purpose: '城市天气查询 - 根据城市名查询天气信息' (City weather query - query weather information based on city name). It specifies the verb '查询' (query) and resource '天气信息' (weather information), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'getWeatherByLocation' beyond mentioning city-based vs location-based queries.

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 some usage context: '支持武汉、北京、上海等主要城市' (supports major cities like Wuhan, Beijing, Shanghai) and '如果不提供日期，默认查询今天和明天的天气数据' (if no date is provided, defaults to querying today and tomorrow's weather data). This gives implied guidance on when to use it (for city-based queries with optional date ranges) but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over 'getWeatherByLocation' or other alternatives.

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