meteo_adesso

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly scopes the behavior to 'in questo momento' and Italian municipalities, and the read-only nature is evident from the query wording. It does not mention failure modes or output format, but for a simple weather lookup these are not critical.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, usage triggers follow, and the only parameter is explained with examples. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter read-only weather tool, this is nearly complete. Absence of an output schema means the return shape is unspecified, but the description's phrasing ('tempo, temperatura') implies what the answer covers. No further context is essential.

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%; the only parameter 'citta' has just a type/title. The description compensates fully by explaining that it is a comune name and giving concrete examples ('Milano', 'Arsago Seprio'). This is exactly the meaning an agent needs.

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 opens with a clear statement of the tool's function: current weather ('Che tempo fa in questo momento') for an Italian location. This directly distinguishes it from sibling meteo_previsioni, which implies future weather, and from notizie/qualita_aria tools.

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?

It gives explicit trigger examples ('cerca il tempo, la temperatura, se piove... adesso') so an agent knows when to select it. It does not explicitly name meteo_previsioni as the alternative for forecasts, but the repeated 'adesso' makes the boundary clear.

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