get_global_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement (important authentication context) and specifies 'current weather' (temporal scope), but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, error handling, response format details, or whether it's a read-only operation. It adds some value but leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by well-organized sections for prerequisites, parameters, and returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, API dependency), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameters, and return concept, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like rate limits or error scenarios. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, keeping it appropriately scoped.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear parameter documentation in the Args section. It explains both parameters (city and country_code) with examples and indicates country_code is optional, adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. This is exactly what's needed when schema coverage is low.

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 specific action ('Get current weather'), resource ('for any city worldwide'), and scope ('worldwide'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_weather_forecast (future weather) and get_weather_alerts (alerts). It uses precise language that immediately communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'requires OPENWEATHER_API_KEY' as a prerequisite and indicating it's for 'current weather,' which implicitly distinguishes it from forecast tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, leaving some room for improvement in direct comparison guidance.

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