看雪山 Kanxueshan

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral constraint absent from the schema: the forecast horizon is limited to 1-7 days, plus the date default of today. However it says nothing about update cadence, data freshness, accuracy limits, or whether an unknown peak silently returns empty.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the purpose and the 1-7 day scope come first, then a compact parameter glossary. No filler, though the parameter line is a terse list rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description fully documents the four inputs despite 0% schema coverage. Remaining gaps are behavioral (peak-name matching rules, failure modes) rather than structural.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names all four parameters, marks viewpoint as optional with a concrete example (子梅垭口), gives the date format YYYY-MM-DD with its default, and ties the 1-7 range to days. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., expected spelling/language of peak names).

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 and resource: querying a '日照金山' (sunrise-golden-mountain) forecast for a named peak over N days. Clear enough to distinguish from the sibling names query_peaks/search_peak by the forecast/query contrast, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 on when to use this tool rather than query_peaks or search_peak, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name that this is the forecasting counterpart to the search siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'query' implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm read-only behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. It does add useful output context (golden light period, 0-100 score, weather factors), which partially compensates.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second documents the parameters. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still gives a helpful summary of them. Parameters are fully documented, so the main remaining gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance against siblings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies lat/lng as WGS-84 decimal degrees (a coordinate-system detail absent from the schema) and date as YYYY-MM-DD with today as the default. All three parameters gain meaning beyond their bare titles.

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 clear verb+resource: querying snow mountains visible near given coordinates, plus a golden-hour forecast with a score and weather factors. An agent can tell what the tool returns, though it does not differentiate itself from the siblings forecast_peak or search_peak.

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?

Usage is only implied by the coordinates-based query framing. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus forecast_peak or search_peak, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that results include peaks and viewpoints, but it does not state read-only behavior, permissions, rate limits, pagination, or result format.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: purpose first, then parameter explanation. No filler, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully explain return values. However, with sibling tools present, it should clarify when to use this search versus query_peaks or forecast_peak, and it does not.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'name' is defined as a peak-name keyword with concrete examples (贡嘎山, 幺妹峰, 卡瓦格博, 慕士塔格). This adds clear semantic value beyond the bare string 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?

States a specific verb ('搜索') and resource ('中国雪山'), and describes the return as matching peaks plus viewpoints. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like query_peaks or forecast_peak.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is provided. The name implies a keyword search, but the description offers no routing context.

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