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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling. The burden falls entirely on the description, which is silent on these matters.

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 very short, which is concise, but it omits essential information such as the expected input parameter, output format, or any usage example. Brevity is achieved at the expense of completeness, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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 high parameter count and lack of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what the return value looks like, what errors may occur, or how to handle non-existent cities. An agent would have to guess or probe the tool, which is risky.

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?

The schema defines 9 parameters, all optional, but most are irrelevant to weather (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'feed', 'host', 'json', 'path', 'zone', 'query'). Their descriptions are generic and appear copied from other tools, and even the 'city' parameter is described as 'discarded after the call', which is confusing. The description does not clarify which parameter is required or meaningful, so an agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke the tool.

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 indicates the tool's purpose: retrieving the current temperature for a city using Open-Meteo. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so it is slightly less direct.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of which parameter to supply (e.g., 'city') or how to handle multiple cities or errors. The description is purely declarative with no usage instructions.

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