compare_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function without explaining what the output looks like, whether it returns a comparison string or both temperatures, handling of missing cities, or units. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior beyond the stated purpose.

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 sentence with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded and every word earns its place. It is appropriately concise.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is minimally adequate for the core task. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, it leaves gaps about error handling and usage context. It is neither over-specified nor severely incomplete, but it could offer more guidance.

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. It does not explain the parameters beyond the implicit 'two cities' in the text. The parameter titles ('First City', 'Second City') are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning about formats, constraints, or units. It fails to fill the gap left by the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Compare') and the resource ('current temperatures of two cities'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_weather (single city) and get_weather_forecast (forecast rather than current). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 purpose implicitly indicates when to use it (when you need to compare current temps of two cities), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from calling get_weather twice or other siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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