Snow Probability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses the data source (real-time weather data) and method (machine learning algorithms), which is useful context. However, it omits what the tool returns (a probability value, scale, format), whether it is read-only, latency, or failure behavior for uncovered locations.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the predicted outcome and then qualifies the inputs. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least signal that a location is required and roughly what comes back. It covers the 'what for' but leaves the agent guessing about the required zipcode and the shape of the result.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the zipcode input — it does not confirm that a location is required or explain the accepted value format beyond the schema's single example.

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: predicting the likelihood of school closures due to snowfall and severe winter weather. The purpose is clear from the first clause, though there are no siblings to differentiate against and the description never ties the purpose to its geographic input.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent can loosely infer the use case from the purpose sentence, but nothing in the text states the conditions under which this tool should be selected.

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