openf1_weather

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: update frequency (~once a minute), the exact return shape (array of objects with listed fields), and explicit 'Auth: none needed'. This goes beyond what annotations provide and informs the agent about freshness and response structure.

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 highly efficient: two brief sentences cover the purpose, update frequency, data fields, return format, and auth requirements. No filler or redundant restatement of the name or schema. Front-loaded with the core action and data types.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data is returned, how fresh it is, and that no auth is needed. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. This is fully sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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% — both meeting_key and session_key have descriptions ('Meeting key, or latest') and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already defines, so the baseline score of 3 applies rather than a higher one.

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 tool's function with a specific verb+resource: "Track weather" and enumerates the exact measurements (air/track temperature, humidity, pressure, wind, rainfall). This distinguishes it from sibling openf1_* tools which focus on other data types like laps or positions.

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 context is implied but not explicitly stated. The description says "Track weather" and lists fields, but does not explicitly say 'Use this when you need session weather conditions' or contrast it with alternatives (though no direct sibling exists). It does mention no auth needed as a prerequisite, which is useful but not a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guideline.

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